Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DERBY CORPORATION BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

CORNWALL RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

FRIENDS OF THE CLERGY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

OXFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

PETITION

Emsworth Relief Road

Mr. Ian Lloyd: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition on behalf of the residents of Hermitage in the County of West Sussex. I am doing so on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), who obviously cannot do so himself.

The Petition sheweth
That the Minister's disposal to reject his Inspector's unequivocal and emphatic recommendations after two Public Inquiries into the Emsworth Relief Road project reveals that the checks and balances essential to the preservation of British democracy have been put into grave disorder and that the criticism of the Inspector published in the Department of the Environment's circular letter of 11th May 1972 is an injustice to a public servant and a Judge of the highest reputation and complete impartiality.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do scrutinise most closely the powers of the Executive and sundry officials in relation to these Public Inquiries and do promote legislation to protect the rights of the humble citizen.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Blind Persons

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost of relieving blind persons of tax as a result of the decision made in 1962; and what is the amount by which an individual relief has been increased, since that time, to account for the fall in the purchasing power of money.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): The estimated cost of the blind persons' allowance of £100 is about £2 million a year. The allowance has not been changed since it was introduced in 1962.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not disgusting that blind people were not allowed an extra £2 million on the same day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to give £2½ million for on-course betting? If it was right in 1962 to allow tax relief


at a figure of £100, why is it not right to bring this up to present-day values? Blind people want to be encouraged to work; they do not want charity but prefer to earn their own living. Will the Minister look again at this matter with a view to taking speedy and urgent action?

Mr. Nott: I fully appreciate that the blind persons' allowance, introduced in 1962, has fallen in value, but that allowance is an extra allowance on top of the the basic personal allowances and other tax allowances given to blind persons. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year gave the largest increase in personal allowances that there has even been, and blind people who are within the tax bracket will benefit.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Value Added Tax

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the revenue that will be raised in a full year by value added tax; and how this compares with the loss in revenue in a full year resulting from the abolition of selective employment tax and purchase tax.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I would refer my hon. Friend to table 17 in this year's Financial Statement.

Dr. Stuttaford: I have no doubt that the figures will at first sight appear satisfactory, but does my hon. Friend agree that there are still problems to be sorted out in the retail trade so that retailers shall not make an unfair profit by adding all stages of VAT together before they put on their mark-up or lose by having to pay tax twice?

Mr. Jenkin: On the first point, I assure my hon. Friend that experience in other countries which have introduced VAT has shown that if retailers make that elementary mistake about VAT, they will quickly discover it as they lose out to their competitors. On the second point, I am glad to be able to reiterate on the question of sale or return arrangements that the Customs and Excise is very ready

to look at any reasonable arrangements which the trade associations may wish to put forward.

Mr. Sheldon: But since the revenue obtainable from VAT is only roughly 10 per cent. of all the revenue that the Government raise, and since the introduction of the Finance Bill has been a massive effort for such a small amount of money in comparison with the total revenue raised by the Government, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to use VAT as a greater source of revenue than the purchase tax and SET that it replaces?

Mr. Jenkin: For right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side, who put up indirect taxes on no fewer than seven separate occasions when they were in office, I can well understand that that must appear to be a temptation. However, the hon. Gentleman will not tempt me into anticipating any statements which may be made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are prepared to accept that existing sale or return schemes may continue to exist under the new provisions of purchase tax and VAT?

Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geofffey Finsberg) in the debate on his Amendment, it is not intended to disturb existing sale or return arrangements.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to do anything about the highway robbery inflicted on the consumer in that he has already paid purchase tax and will now have to pay VAT on television rental?

Mr. Jenkin: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is two or three weeks behind the times. We have taken powers in the Finance Bill to make arrangements to deal with the renting of television sets.

Mr. William Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the revenue likely from value added tax on sport in a full year.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue that will be earned


from value added tax on sports clubs in a full year.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 2nd May by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.—[Vol. 835, c. 111.]

Mr. Price: As the Government are determined to squeeze every last penny out of sport through VAT, will the Chief Secretary seek to put something back by other methods? Why not start by building a great new sporting complex, especially in view of the need to get rid of that ageing and outdated relic, Wembley Stadium?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. We have doubled the grant to the Sports Council since the General Election. Purchase tax on sporting equipment, which was 25 per cent. when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite took office and which was increased to three separate stages to 36⅔ per cent., is today 25 per cent. That is equivalent to a 19 per cent. rate of VAT. We are proposing to tax it at 10 per cent.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the Scottish Football Association now recognises that if VAT is added it will mean the demise of many football clubs in Scotland, which is the home of football? Will the hon. Gentleman also reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) in relation to Wembley Stadium and give similar consideration to Hampden, which is vitally in need of money if it is to retain the interest of football in Scotland?

Mr. Jenkin: I have great sympathy for the problems facing football in Scotland. I will not be drawn into the problems of individuals grounds. They are not matters for the Treasury. The fact is that VAT is a comprehensive tax, and it would be quite wrong to give special treatment under it for consumer spending on certain kinds of leisure activities.

Mr. Adley asked: the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the invisible export-earning content, represented by overseas visitors staying at British hotels, will be exempt from value added tax.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Overseas visitors staying at British hotels will be charged value added tax just as United Kingdom visitors to foreign Hotels pay VAT.

Mr. Adley: Notwithstanding the attempts by the Opposition to denigrate the value of invisible exports, does my hon. Friend agree that the main objective of VAT is to assist exports and that the tourist industry is our largest single dollar earner? It is not incongruous that by this decision our largest single dollar-earning industry is likely to be put into difficulties in terms of its competitive position vis-à-vis the European tourist industry? Will my hon. Friend keep it under review?

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot accept that proposition. I appreciate that my hon. Friend knows a great deal about the tourist industry. However, he is greatly underestimating the capacity of our tourist industry to continue to break all records in attracting tourists from overseas.

Mr. Ashton: If the present Government allow prices to go on rising as fast as they are at present, there will not be a tourist industry next year. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within 100 yards of this House people arebeing asked to pay 13p for a half of larger, 15p for a can of Coke and 10p for a small ice cream? There is blatant exploitation going on and tourists are being robbed every day. When does the Minister intend to do something to protect tourists and futuredollar earners?

Mr. Jenkin: This seems to be a part of our earnings from tourism, on the value of which I thought both sides of the House were agreed.

Overseas Investment (Voluntary Restraint)

Mr. Rost asked: the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policiesor programmes of voluntary restraint or voluntary action, requested or administered by either the Treasury or the Bank of England, have been in operation at any time since the beginning of 1970; and which are still in operation.

Mr. Nott: The voluntary programme restraining direct and institutional portfolio investment in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish


Republic and the voluntary arrangements for limiting the financing in sterling of stocks of silver were both ended earlier this year.

Mr. Rost: If the programme of voluntary restraint on investment, especially in developed countries, is genuinely voluntary, can my hon. Friend assure us that no discrimination or penalties will be applied to any firms which do not conform?

Mr. Nott: Myhon. Friend will be aware of the new exchange control arrangements announced following the floating of sterling. There is no voluntary programme here now. My right hon. and hon. Friends think that it is better to have a statutory arrangement rather than a voluntary programme. That is now what we have.

Dr. Gilbert: Talking of restraints imposed by the Bank of England, does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Bank of England asked all accredited foreign exchange dealers to report their positions on short sterling as of 22nd June? What were the results of those reports? Have any dealers been found to be in excess of their posititons and, therefore, speculating against the £. If so, what steps does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to take?

Mr. Nott: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down detailed Questions of that sort—and if it is usual to answer them—he will get an answer. Foreign exchange dealers and authorised dealers are customarily required to make regular returns to the Bank of England. That is a system which has existed for a great number of years.

National Savings

Mr. Ewing: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the present rate of investment in National Savings; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nott: The high level of investment by the public in National Savings continues and is most welcome. In the 12 months to the end of June, 1972, the total amount invested increased by £883 million.

Mr. Ewing: Those figures are gratifying, but can the hon. Gentleman say

whether the Treasury has any new schemes under consideration for investment in such things as premium bonds? If schemes are under consideration, when does the Treasury expect to make an announcement?

Mr. Nott: The continued support for National Savings shows that the improved terms that the Government were able to offer in their first year of office remain attractive to the investor. But the Government keep the terms of the various securities under constant review. We also keep under review the possibility of issuing new savings instruments.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest balance of payments figures.

Mr. Nott: The current account remained in surplus in the first six months of this year. A deficit on visible trade was more than matched by our net invisible earnings. In June visible trade was also in surplus.

Mr. Dalyell: What contingency projection has the Treasury done on the possible effects on the balance of payments of a significant stoppage in the docks?

Mr. Nott: It is not normal to make forecasts of the balance of payments. There are problems in the docks at present which have now lasted for a little over one day. To assume that a great deal of detailed contingency planning will have been done in the Treasury in the last 24 hours is not very realistic.

Mr. Healey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Department of Trade and Industry analysis which shows a massive and continuing fall in the volume of exports as distinct from their value and a comparable rise in the volume of imports? What steps does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to take to deal with that problem?

Mr. Nott: The right hon. Gentleman makes that statement, but the six months' volume figures for this year do not become available until August. I am not sure to which volume the right hon. Gentleman is referring. As he knows, the June export figures were very good


and show rises in export values right across the board. When the volume figures for this six months become available in August they will be published in the normal way.

Mr. Powell: Is not it fortunate that the £ is floating at present?

Mr. Nott: I am not entirely sure how my right hon. Friend's question or comment is related to this Question. But it is too soon to say how the floating of the £ will affect our current balance. We cannot say at present.

Basle Agreements

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the present status of the Basle agreements.

Mr. Nott: As has already been indicated, my right hon. Friend is consulting with the Governments concerned about the implications of recent United Kingdom measures for the agreements.

Dr. Gilbert: Have any overseas sterling area countries failed to maintain minimum sterling balances in proportion to their reserves as agreed in September, 1968? Will the hon. Gentleman indicate how these discussions are going with Australia and New Zealand, for example, in view of the serious further exchange restrictions which have been imposed by the Government?

Mr. Nott: It is not right that the situation is as serious as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The only new arrangements are in respect of portfolio investment overseas. The talks with the sterling area countries are proceeding, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, it would not be normal to give the House details of confidential discussions.

Exchange Control Regulations

Mr. Dixon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider an early revision of the exchange control regulations, in so far as these relate to what is commonly called the 25 per cent. surrender rule.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to harmonise the operation of the premium currency markets in respect of

investments denominated in dollars and other foreign currencies and OSA transactions.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: My right hon. Friend does not at present contemplate any change in the rules governing investment by United Kingdom residents in foreign currency securities. I cannot yet say what arrangements will be appropriate in the longer term.

Mr. Dixon: Does my hon. Friend agree that under the regulations as they now stand, portfolio investment for pension funds and investment trusts is greatly inhibited and that, in addition, over the long term this has a bad effect on our balance of payments?

Mr. Jenkin: I recognise that the scheme is unpopular among those who have to manage foreign portfolios, but I ask them to recognise in turn that there is little doubt that the inflow of foreign exchange which it produces continues to make a useful contribution to the strength of sterling.

National Economy

Mr. Ashley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he now proposes to take to reduce the level of unemployment.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he remains satisfied with the estimated growth now taking place in gross domestic product; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the working of the economic incentives provided in his Budget; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I would refer the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) to the answer I gave to the same Question on 27th June.—[Vol. 839, c. 275.] The indications are that the economy is growing broadly in line with the rate forecast at the time of the Budget, namely, 5 per cent. a year over the period there mentioned.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Chancellor aware that the rate of growth has not significantly affected the long-term totally


unemployed and that we are all set for a return to 1 million unemployed this winter? Would he now care to answer the question: what further steps does he propose to take to reduce unemployment?

Mr. Barber: During the last three months unemployment has fallen by 137,000. Regarding future prospects, it is highly relevant to note that consumer expenditure in the second quarter was 2 per cent. above the first quarter level; the volume of retail sales rose further in May to be nearly 2 per cent. above the first quarter level; new car registrations in May were at a record level—some 10 per cent. higher than the previous peak. June was another new high. The industrial production index rose by 2½ per cent. in May. In April and May together industrial production was about 3¼ per cent. above the rate for the second half of 1971. Taken together these indicators point to a rapid expansion since the Budget, which I hope will be further reflected in the unemployment figures.

Mr. Dempsey: Does the Chancellor mean what he says in view of the figures published only recently which show that we have the highest unemployment since 1940 at this time of the year in the United Kingdom and Scotland, the latter having twice the national average? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 10 per cent. of the insurable population in some parts of Scotland, including my own area, are unemployed, that young people have reached the age of 18 never having worked, and that we are now being afflicted with the human drama of fourth-year apprentices being paid off with no hope of completing their apprenticeships? It is reminiscent of the blind alley employment of the hungry 1930s. Will the Chancellor take effective steps to reverse this alarming unemployment trend?

Mr. Barber: The reflationary measures we have taken over the past two years are on an unparalleled scale—notably the tax cuts of £3,000 million and the additional short-term public expenditure which has been specially tailored to raise demand and employment by about £1,700 million.

Mr. Body: Will my right hon. Friend boast a little louder that our rate of growth now exceeds that of every country in the European Economic Community, other than France?

Mr. Barber: The rate of growth of the economy at present is more than twice as fast as it was during the period 1964 to 1970.

Mr. Joel Barnett: In view of the Chancellor's complacent satisfaction about growth, employment and the balance of payments, will he assure us that he has ruled out any possibility of a statutory prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Barber: I have repeatedly said that although some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have had experience of a statutory policy and tramped—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I will come to the question—through the Lobbies night after night in support of such a policy, we know that this is not the answer to the problems which we face. We believe that the right answer is to work together, the two sides of industry and the Government—[Interruption.] This is typical of the Opposition. They do not care two hoots whether there is co-operation with the unions or the employers. All they want to ensure is that this country is brought to its knees by one means or another. We shall continue with our efforts to reach a reasonable agreement with both sides of industry.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Reverting to the original Question, if it should appear as the year wore on that the achievement of the growth objective laid down in the Budget would conflict with the other objective of restraining domestic inflation, which of those two objectives would have the greater priority?

Mr. Barber: I have no doubt that two of the several objectives which any Government ought to pursue are faster growth and the containment of inflation.

Tax Advisory Services

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for local Inland Revenue departments to appoint tax advisory officers to deal with the queries of people who cannot afford the services of an accountant.

Mr. Nott: All Inland Revenue staff are instructed that they must assist the public by all reasonable means in fulfilling their obligations and obtaining their rights


under the laws administered by the Department.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of people, many of them elderly and on limited incomes, are paying more tax than they need because expert advice is not available to them and consequentially allowances and reliefs are not being offset in the most advantageous way against their income and that this problem has been exacerbated by the dispersal of local tax inspectorates so that most people are dealing with very remote offices and often with more than one? Will he therefore consider appointing a local advisory service for at least the first few months of each financial year?

Mr. Nott: On the last point, my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary announced in the House on 15th July this year that, following the report of the Working Party appointed to look into the whole question of inquiry facilities, the point which seems to concern my hon. Friend, the Inland Revenue would be pressing ahead with plans to set up a chain of local inquiry offices, particular emphasis being laid on Scotland and London. In fact, 50 such offices are already in operation. If my hon. Friend knows of any elderly people who are having difficulties with their tax assessments, I hope she will write to me giving specific examples. Local offices are always happy to help people when they go there. I hope that my hon. Friend will let me know of any specific cases where this is not being done.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the instances brought up by the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim), hon. Members often have to deal with people who are enduring real hardship? People come out of work or reach retirement age and have income tax rebates due to them but a wall of silence seems to surround the hon. Gentleman's Department when it is asked about these matters. Is it not time that there was a Department, or at least one person in a Department, to deal with these cases of hardship, if nothing more, so that people can get their returns and rebates which, apparently, in many cases, they get only if they approach a Member of Parliament to take up the case for them?

Mr. Nott: It is best to get a system whereby individuals deal with their own local tax offices and their own local tax inspector. In Scotland, with Centre One, the position is rather different, and that is why we concentrate local enquiry offices in places of this sort. The Inland Revenue is under instruction to give every possible help in areas mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. If there are difficulties, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman writes to me and I shall see whether I can help.

Mr. Costain: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a local office at Folkestone and that elderly people there would very much appreciate the help they were given by it if he could persuade them that the tax inspector was really on their side? Can my hon. Friend do more to help them?

Mr. Nott: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's message. I am sure the Folkestone office does its best, but if my hon. Friend has examples of difficulties perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman not only consider suggestions from his side of the House about local offices but, in addition, understand that quite frequently every right hon. and hon. Member gets in his post bag cases of quite inordinate delays by the Inland Revenue, and that just as much hardship is caused through this kind of delay as by the remoteness of tax offices? Will the hon. Gentleman please press his Department to try to do something about this problem?

Mr. Nott: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I answer most of the Inland Revenue inquiries which come from Members of Parliament, and therefore I am conscious of the problems which he mentions. Generally speaking, although there are many inquiries through Members to the Treasury, I believe that the Inland Revenue carries out an extremely good job in difficult circumstances, and I think the House would agree generally that, in view of the vast number of tax payers, it is performing its task extremely well.

Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend has explained this in a very nice way, and I agree with some of what he said,


but not all of it. As he is so interested in all this, why does not the Treasury accept the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner? Is it not a fact that the Treasury fights some of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner? I often disagree with the views of the Treasury. The Parliamentary Commissioner, having gone into cases where there have been unnecessary delays and mistakes, recommends something to be done for these people, but the Treasury says "No". Will my hon. Friend please get on with doing what the Parliamentary Commissioner recommends?

Mr. Nott: I appreciate that this is a particular matter which interests my hon. Friend greatly. I do not think it was ever intended that the Parliamentary Commissioner's judgment should in every case take precedence over that of Ministers, but, generally speaking, obviously we take into account the views of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and I think my hon. Friend will find that in nearly every case—with one or two exceptions—his views have been accepted.

Unified Personal Taxation

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the preparation for the introduction of the new unified system of personal tax; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nott: I am satisfied that work is going to plan.

Mr. Chapman: As there is less than nine months to go before the implementation of the new unified system—and perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm that it is coming in in April, 1973—may I ask whether he intends to give the widest possible publicity to what is, after all, a radical new system of assessing taxation well before it comes into force?

Mr. Nott: A leaflet will be sent out with the coding notices, and in the autumn the Revenue will publish a pamphlet explaining the new system in simple terms. Other Revenue publications will naturally be altered as necessary to meet the new system. It will be coming in on the date already predicted.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Farr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if liquid hydrocarbon from the North Sea will be subject to the fuel oil tax.

Mr. Nott: Yes, Sir, Hydrocarbon oil is chargeable with the same duty whatever its origin.

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he explain why discrimination will be exercised in favour of North Sea gas which will pay no tax?

Mr. Nott: Because North Sea gas has never borne this duty. I am not quite clear of the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make.

Tax Redactions

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total loss to the Revenue to date resulting from all the reductions in taxation that have been made since June, 1970.

Mr. Barber: The total loss of Revenue from the reductions in taxation made since June, 1970, is currently running at a rate of £3,000 million a year.

Mr. Knox: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the reduction in taxation under the present Government is about the same as the increase in taxation under the 1964–70 Labour Government?

Mr. Barber: Yes, Sir. That is just about right.

Mr. Molloy: Ought not the Chancellor to be more concerned about the sums of money being being paid for unemployment than about tax concessions? Does he agree that unemployment is criminally high? Will he further agree that the current industrial situation will mean a great tragedy for the nation? There will be no taxes paid if he keeps on making statements about working people being blackmailers, the Foreign Secretary about their being greedy, and the Prime Minister not being prepared to repeal his own Tory-made IRA which is causing as much damage industrially as the other organisation across the sea? Ought not these things to occupy his mind much more?

Mr. Barber: Whatever defences the hon. Gentleman may like to adduce in favour of high taxation, we on this side of the House believe that it is a good thing to cut taxation. What is more, we believe that one of the best ways of ensuring individual prosperity in a country such as ours is to reduce the proportion of the national income which is taken by taxation, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Cant: If the right hon. Gentleman could relive the agonising experience of the last two years, would he not apply the whole of these tax concessions to reducing the cost of living by a reduction in indirect taxation?

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. I think that one should strike a balance. I should have thought that most people were pleased with the increase in personal allowances.

Nationalised Industries (Subsidies)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the cost to public funds of subsidies to the nationalised industries necessitated by price restraint in the current financial year.

Mr. Barber: Until discussions with the industries are complete, it is not possible to give a precise estimate. For details of assistance already given, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 7th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn.—[Vol 832, c. 279]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In the course of these discussions with industries will my right hon. Friend consider the proposition that one of the easiest ways of stimulating inflation is to disperse resistance to it by transferring the direct impact of inflation from the users of goods and services to the general body of taxpayers? Is not this a major consideration which we should bear in mind?

Mr. Barber: There are obviously important implications of the policy we have adopted, but I think everybody in the House agrees that it is of the utmost importance that we should take whatever reasonable action is open to us to combat inflation, and the continuation of price restraint by the CBI will, I believe, be of great help in this. The CBI made it

clear that it could not continue the policy of price restraint unless it was matched by the nationalised industries, but I agree with my hon. Friend that there are wider considerations which also have to be taken into account.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the Chancellor confirm that the Government's policy on non-intervention has now been suspended, and will he consider doing the same with some of the other Acts?

Mr. Barber: No, Sir.

Pensions (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to meet representatives of retired pensioners' organisations to discuss his decision to float the £ sterling, in view of its effect on the purchasing power of their incomes.

Mr. Nott: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans for such a meeting. Pensions are being raised by 12½ per cent. in October and the effect of floating on the cost of living is likely to be small.

Mr. Cox: Surely the Chancellor has an obligation to retired people. The decision that has been taken by his Department to float the £ will have a serious effect on price increases. These will come even before the pension increase is paid, so that much of the increase will be meaningless. Should not the Chancellor as a matter of urgency seek a meeting with pensioners' representatives and then see the Prime Minister and suggest that there should be an urgent review of pensions?

Mr. Nott: The present Government have introduced an annual review of pensions, which is a substantial advance on the previous position, and thehon. Gentleman should recognise this fact. Over the two years to June, 1972, pensions have increased by 32½ per cent. whereas retail prices have increased by 17 per cent., so the real value of pensions has been substantially increased. I am happy to meet representatives of the pensioners. The Government fully accept their obligation to these people.

Mr. Marten: If it is the right economic policy to have a floating £, on what criteria of economic judgment can it be said at this point that it must be fixed by 1st January?

Mr. Nott: I do not think this is strictly related to old-age pensions; it arises on a later Question. My hon. Friend is well aware of the policy to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced with regard to parities. I do not want to repeat it now.

Hotel Industry

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Reveune of treating, for capital depreciation purposes, the hotel industry as an industry.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The cost might be of the order of £15 million a year, but this estimate is subject to a wide margin of error.

Mr. Hannam: In view of the small amount involved, is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern amongst many Members and those concerned with this vital industry about the effects next April of the ending of the grants and loans scheme and the introduction of value added tax upon future investment in a vital part of our foreign earnings sector? Will he try to bring the Treasury out of its out-of-date attitude so that the hotel industry can be treated as one worthy of depreciation allowances.

Mr. Jenkin: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern with these matters. We had a full discussion of this whole area of policy during the proceedingson the Finance Bill on 10th July. I cannot go further than what I said then. I remind my hon. Friend that there is a very great difficulty once one starts extending capital allowances to non-industrial buildings.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whether there are difficulties or not, fairness should come into this? The hotel industry, as part of the foreign currency earning tourist industry, is as much an export industry as is a normal manufacturing industry. The idea that it should be treated differently simply because it is different is not in keeping with the treatment we expect from this Government.

Mr. Jenkin: It is exactly the argument of fairness which creates the difficulty. If we were to extend capital allowances to this category of non-industrial build-

ing, there would be absolutely no line which we could draw short of extending them to the whole range, which would lead to a cost of between £250 million and £300 million and would require an increase of about one-sixth in the yield of corporation tax to make up for it.

£ Sterling (Exchange Rate)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the present exchange rate of the £ sterling; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the floating of sterling.

Mr. Barber: I am satisfied that it is right to allow the sterling rate to float for the time being. It is too early to draw conclusions from the course of the rate.

Mr. Duffy: How does the Chancellor reconcile the confidence he expressed at the time of floating that the exchange rate of the £ was realistic and should be sustained with the dramatic fall which has taken place since?

Mr. Barber: I said that my observation then was based on what I considered to be objective criteria.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Chancellor aware that we were very concerned earlier this afternoon when, in reply to his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), one of his hon. Friends expressed ignorance of the connection between the balance of payments and floating the £? Would he like to educate his hon. Friend, or can his right hon. Friend do so for him?

Mr. Barber: I thought that my hon. Friend gave a fully convincing answer.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exchange rate reflects the collective judgment of the overseas financial and trading community and that the best contribution we can make to that in this country is for one-half of the community not to try to get the other half in a half-Nelson?

Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend has made a good point.

Mr. Healey: Can the Chancellor confirm to the House that he informed his


respective colleagues in the Common Market countries that he will not peg the £ at a fixed parity until he has got the British rate of inflation down to that of our main competitors in world trade?

Mr. Barber: I dealt with this earlier. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I saidon an earlier occasion, he would have heard me say that it was our intention to return to a fixed rate as soon as conditions permitted. I also said that I hoped it would be possible to bring the floating to an end before 1st January, 1973.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Bexley-Sidcup Conservative Association on 6th July about Government policies.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech about Government policy at Bexley-Sidcup on 6th July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did so on 7th July, Sir.

Mr. Whitehead: In that speech the Prime Minister was boasting that this was a Government who had kept their pledges. One appreciates that the right hon. Gentleman was at that time celebrating his victory in Bexley-Sidcup because the opposition had faded gracefully away. Does he realise that his policy of confrontation on the industrial front will produce no easy victories over working people who are determined to stand up for their rights? Can the Prime Minister today, with the country on the brink of a general strike, tell the House and the thousands who marched on Pentonville this afternoon exactly how his unjust law is fulfilling his pledge of "one nation"?

The Prime Minister: There is no confrontation by the Government. This matter is an issue between five men and the courts of this land.

Mr. Dalyell: Does it dent the Prime Minister's sense of certainty on these matters that Lord Devlin can choose to go on television and express his extreme

concern that the impression is being given—I will put it no higher than that—that the law and the courts of this country are being used to further an industrial policy?

The Prime Minister: I did not hear Lord Devlin and I have no responsibility for what he says. If Lord Devlin expressed that view, the Labour Party are the ones who have given that impression

Mr. Walters: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, although nobody in his senses wishes to have a confrontation with the trade unions, there is a deep feeling amongst the people of this country that they wish to see the country governed by the Government and by Parliament and not dictated to by the unions?

The Prime Minister: That has been the traditional view of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — CBI (MEETING)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official meeting with the Confederation of British Industry on Monday, 10th July, in Downing Street.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official meeting with businessmen at Downing Street on Monday, 10th July, regarding inflation.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave on 13th July to the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davies).—[Vol. 840, c. 421–2.]

Mr. Sheldon: As the Prime Minister has pursued his policy of reducing wage demands at meetings with both the CBI and the TUC, and as he has already stated that he will not introduce any statutory policy on wages other than in an extreme economic situation, will he now say whether an extreme economic situation exists today?

The Prime Minister: We were to have had a meeting this afternoon but I greatly regret that the meeting has been deferred, as does the CBI. The object of that meeting was to reach a voluntary agreement.

Mr. Ashton: What did the businessmen say about the floating £ pushing up import prices?

The Prime Minister: As far as I know the CBI and the businessmen have said that the decision the Government took at that time was taken at the right time and firmly, and that they were glad we took it.

Mr. Cant: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the remark made by the president of the CBI on leaving the joint meeting between himself, the CBI and the TUC that it is obvious that a great psychological adjustment is required on the part of the Government and business, that the president of the CBI referred to vast speculative fortunes that have been made and to the asset strippers and said he appreciated that this was not consistent with the situation that existed in the country at the moment when the workers' real incomes were being reduced and almost agreed that the capital gains tax would have to rise to 50 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures he will see that real disposable income in real terms has not been reduced but has increased in the last two years by almost twice as much as it did under the previous Administration. As regards the other matters, what the president of the CBI mentioned were subjects under discussion at the meeting, and they are still to be under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENTS (SECRETARY OF STATE'S SPEECH)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment in Worcester on Saturday, 8th July, regarding higher rents represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr. Allaun: But did not the speech contradict what the Prime Minister said here last Thursday, that he could not guarantee that rent increases would be under 5 per cent. because the scheme would be carried out by the local authorities? Is it not a fact that the local authorities will not fix rents in the future but, for the first time in housing

history, will be forced to make a profit out of their council tenants?

The Prime Minister: What I said was that local circumstances vary. As the House knows, various local authorities have a figure for rent increase now of less than £1, and this is because of the situation of rents in their area. Where some are near the fair rent, obviously they have less distance to do. Many others took the first step already last April and they therefore have less distance to go. I said that it is impossible in the circumstances to reach an overall conclusion about local authorities as a whole.

Mr. Redmond: Will my right hon. Friend accept that three of my constituents in Bolton last Saturday morning asked me how the Government would protect their rebates due under the Housing Finance Bill as the Bolton Corporation has said that it will not operate it? Can he give these people any reassurance?

The Prime Minister: This is an integral part of the whole scheme. I have said, as regards any conclusions of individual local authorities, that we had better wait till the date approaches.

Mr. Harold Wilson: When the Prime Minister said last week that this was a matter for the local authorities, did he realise that the local authorities are not free agents in this matter under the Government's scheme? Is he telling us that, when the Bill and the White Paper were brought to him, he did not as Prime Minister ask what would be the estimate of the increase in rents involved under the scheme? Did he allow the Bill to go forward without even asking whether it would be 3 per cent. or 30 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman that the circumstances in local authorities vary and I have said that I would let him have approximate figures, so far as they can be calculated by the Department of the Environment, for each group of the community, showing how they would be affected. Those figures have been compiled and are almost complete. I shall let the right hon. Gentleman have them at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman have them put in the Library or publish them in the Official Report?

The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to publish them in the Official Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — TILLICOULTRY

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Tillicoultry.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Douglas: That is a pity, because if the Prime Minister went to Tillicoultry this Friday he would be able to meet some of my constituents who are being paid off and being made redundant through no fault of their own. Will he note that I have asked for a report on the activities of a company which has received substantial sums of public money to be sent to him? May I have an assurance that, as soon as the right hon. Gentleman has studied that report—which in my view shows clearly that these circumstances were preventable—he will have the activities of that company comprehensively investigated?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentle man has not mentioned the name of any company—

Mr. Douglas: Wiggins Teape.

The Prime Minister: If he is addressing himself to the circumstances of that particular case, I am aware of them. I shall consider further the question of an official inquiry—but I understand that in any case the firm has agreed to an independent inquiry and the necessary personnel have been appointed. I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman in detail, or perhaps my right hon. Friend will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SECRETARY (SPEECH)

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Doune, Perthshire, on 8th July, 1972, about wage earners represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Doune, Perthshire, on 8th July, about economic affairs, reprerents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on inflation of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Doune, Perthshire, on 8th July, 1972, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Doune, Perthshire, about inflation on Saturday, 8th July, 1972, represented Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Atkinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that opinion throughout the country, as a result of the Foreign Secretary's speech and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that the Government are now pursuing a class vendetta against wage earners? If the word "wages" in that speech were replaced by the word "profit", would the Prime Minister's answer then be "Yes, Sir"—that he agrees with it?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations. I have had many reasonable exchanges with him across the Floor in which we have tried to influence each other, but I cannot accept allegations of that kind.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that I have included Question No. Q2 in the group which I am answering. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was not present when it was originally called. As he is now present, perhaps he may have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving me this opportunity, and I regret my unavoidable lateness a few minutes ago.
As the Foreign Secretary's speech praised the Government's efforts at economic growth, how comes it that the latest


Bank of England figures reveal that fully one-third of the last three months' increase in bank advances went to the current finance and property boom, while manufacturing industry had precisely 2 per cent. of the new funds? When will the Government start building up the productive base of the economy instead of frittering away our resources in an orgy of unproductive profiteering?

The Prime Minister: The figures for growth given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor show that we are achieving the growth which he set out to achieve in his Budget. As regards investment, the explanation is that industrial firms were not at that time making demands on the banks for further investment. The inducements which we have given in the Budget should lead to that.

Mr. St. John-Stevas.: Was not the theme and point of the Foreign Secretary's speech that, if export prices continue to rise we shall price ourselves out of world markets, and is not that basic common sense?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and my right hon. Friend was saying that we can move forward now to a reasonable rate of growth of 5 per cent., provided that together we exercise reasonable restraint. We can achieve a great deal provided that we are prepared to go at a reasonable rate.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the Prime Minister agree that the greediest men are those like the property speculators in Manchester who seven months ago bought a tiny plot of land for £36,000 and last week sold it for £100,000? Ought not the Foreign Secretary to have condemned the greed of these people, who made £64,000 without doing a hand's turn, rather than attack working men who would not see £64,000 in a lifetime of hard work?

The Prime Minister: Those who make capital gains are taxed, as they were taxed under the last Government, and that is absolutely right. I have no sym-

pathy whatever with the case the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. Morris: Will the Prime Minister take it that the speech was received with something less than enthusiasm in my constituency, especially among steel workers at the British Steel Corporation who accepted a reduction of £2·50 a week in their earnings and still found themselves redundant and unemployed? If the nation is to be subjected to a series of lectures on greediness from Ministers, will the Prime Minister consider asking his right hon. Friends that, when they intend to make such speeches, they divest themselves of their inherited and private affluence and live on the weekly wages on which postal workers, steel workers and engineering workers have to live?

The Prime Minister: I have told the House about the theme of my right hon. Friend's speech. I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to be the first to acknowledge that the only way to provide more employment, particularly for those concerned with a radical reorganisation of industry like those in the steel industry, is to make steady progress instead of trying to achieve high monetary wages and high prices, which impede progress

Mr. Ridsdale: As the national Press will not be printing any of my right hon. Friend's replies, does he not think that he should arrange for television to be brought into the House so that the country can see what is going on?

The Prime Minister: I am already involved in enough controversy without joining in that one. It is a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. Joel Barnett: If, as the Foreign Secretary said, greed is the root of the problem, will the Prime Minister say whether the Chancellor's tax proposals have helped to cure it?

The Prime Minister: I think my right hon. Friend's tax proposals have given people of all income groups an incentive for greater output.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL SITUATION

Leave having been given on Monday, 24th July, under Standing Order No. 9, to discuss:

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Our first charge against the Government is that on the very day that the Jones-Aldington Committee produced its report on dock employment the Government were sitting in the Cabinet room presiding over an almost total stoppage in the docks and in some parts of wider areas of industry, a stoppage which, as we warned, was the direct and inevitable consequence of their inept and malevolent manoeuvrings in industrial relations.
In the last debate on this subject those of us in the House who represent dockers, and some of us representing the lorry drivers serving the docks as well, spoke of the deep anxieties felt in dockland and the need for fundamental solutions to the fundamental human problems, solutions which Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington were determined to seek. I paid tribute to the rôle of the Minister in those vital preliminary stages before the Jones-Aldington Committee got to work. Even so, the work of the Committee would have been destroyed at the outset, through the intervention of the fussy, prissy legislation which is the hallmark of this Government, had it not been for the intervention of the Official Solicitor—the first intervention of the Official Solicitor. The Government, powerless to help themselves or the nation are now praying for the nearest thing the legal system provides to divine intervention in the second intervention of the Official Solicitor.
Yesterday the work of the Jones-Aldington Committee was set at nought. It had produced a report which, by dealing with the real fears and anxieties of the dockers, could have rid dockland of the protective measures which have been taken by dockers and lorry drivers as they saw the need for them in defence of their jobs. On Thursday of this week the dockers' delegate conference had to decide on the Jones-Aldington Report. It would not have been easy even without

the committals to prison. Fears and suspicions die hard on the waterfront. But now the conference must take its decisions against a background of the fiercest anger and blazing resentment that the docks have ever known.
There opposite me sit the men responsible. The Solicitor-General is, I think, shyly sitting at the end of the Front Bench, but he is there, too. [Hon. Members: "Where is Barbara?"] She has gone to hospital this afternoon, if Conservative Members want to know.
Those on the Government Front Bench are responsible for what could be the second shutdown in industry in less than six months, both of them the result of doctrinaire postures in industrial relations, first on the miners and now on the docks, both the result of a total miscalculation of the mood of men who feel themselves unfairly challenged with the power of the State, and in this case with the majesty of the law arrayed against them.
Let the Government accept their responsibility like men for what has occurred. What has happened is the direct result of a law of their making, a creation of their design, the Industrial Relations Act, and the Industrial Relations Court, which because of the law that court has to administer is rapidly proving the most irrelevant and expensive judicial bauble in history. The Government sit there in the face of the crisis they have created, unable to act, paralysed, immobilised, impotent, politically and morally bankrupt in this situation. [Interruption.] They caused it, but they cannot get out of it, unless the Official Solicitor comes to their help once again.
We have heard a great deal of the Prime Minister's personal style of government. Let me give him one canon of government with which in his heart he must agree. No Government must ever put themselves in a situation where they are powerless to act in the face of a national crisis—and that is where the Government are today. This Government, by the nature of the legislation they forced through the House, have rendered themselves ineffective and powerless to act. They are now the prisoners of their own law, like a bench of right hon. Frankensteins ruefully contemplating the damage and devastation caused by the legal monstrosity they created. [Interruption.] I have plenty of time.


Conservative Members may laugh at the fact that the docks are closed. The Government Front Bench closed them. The Government are looking at the damage their legal monstrosity has created. But, at least, even Baron Frankenstein, before being destroyed by the monster he had created, did not go on Radio 4 whining about it and blaming everyone but himself, like the Secretary of State for Employment last night.
The Government talk about the law. Not everyone will like this, but my right hon. Friends and I have repeated many times—I said it publicly before the first ill-fated reference to the court by the Secretary of State for Employment—that the law must be obeyed, even manifestly bad law. [Interruption.] I said it on television. I have said it throughout.
But there is an implication here. Bad law must be changed. That is why we have made it clear that we shall immediately repeal the Act, if the Government have not themselves been forced through a short repeal Bill to slit the throat of their own legislative progeny. For side by side with compliance with the law—[Interruption.] I want to be brief, but I have plenty of time. [Hon. Members: "So have we."] So have we, when the Prime Minister gets up. I have noticed that Conservative Members are never so noisy as when they are in deep trouble. That is why they are being noisy this afternoon, and they know it. Those on the Government Front Bench know it. They are not joining in.
Side by side with compliance with the law is another obligation, an obligation on Government to introduce laws capable of reflecting—indeed, strengthening and not destroying—that sense of national consensus on which the spirit and the working of our democracy must rest.
I say this to the Secretary of State for Employment. Not long ago the name of Macmillan and the word "consensus" were regarded as something like synonymous. Now that name is debased as the right hon. Gentleman acts as a messenger boy and apologist for a leader who rejects in his heart the very idea of consensus, whose style of government is a system of confrontation based on the memory of those partisan cheers that he used to get when he went around the country peddling the distorted doctrines of the Inns of

Court Conservative Association—whose members are now working. They are working all right, but the docks are not.
The Secretary of State now stands on the burning deck with a microphone in his hand but with nothing to say except to appeal to the law. There is something totally improper in his ex cathedra pronouncements in the House and in his broadcasts that had NIRC not existed the Court of Chancery would have brought about the situation we face today. He cannot say, he is not entitled or empowered to say, what the judgment of that court would have been, and he, above all men, should be wary of pre-judging the actions of the Court of Appeal. If he or the Lord President want to repeat their claim that without NIRC the law would have been enforced, let either of them tell the House how many workers in total were ever in prison as a result of the pre-1971 law.
Nearly two months ago at a trade union conference—and Ministers should try to attend them sometimes because they might learn a bit more about the subject—I warned about the dock situation and the inability of the court so constituted by the Act to deal with the deep social problems and fears. I contrasted on that occasion the work of Lord Devlin on docks decasualisation, and my suggestion to the Government then was "Devlin in, NIRC out". Anyone who saw Lord Devlin on television last night and heard his wisdom, his humanity, his hard-headed realism, and his respect for the law that has been debased by the Government's Act would regret that even at this late stage the Government did not take that advice. Yet this afternoon the Prime Minister sneered at Lord Devlin as he and other Ministers at the time sneered at the Devlin Report on the Nyasaland massacre. [Interruption.] I refer hon. Members, if they do not accept what I say, to Mr. Harold Macmillan's memoirs on the subject.
Since the Prime Minister appears not to have seen Lord Devlin on the television, I assume that he has asked for a copy of the text and that he will study it. If not, I will remind him of one or two comments made by Lord Devlin last night. He said that the Act
might have worked out quite peaceably…But in the light of hindsight, I think


that there are some provisions of it which do rather turn the thing into a confrontation between the Courts and trade unions and which I should like to see go".
He went on:
First of all there's contempt of court. I wish that contempt of court had never been introduced at all
but it was in the Government's Bill. He said
This, after all, is a new field. It's a new court and it's a court"—

[Interruption.]

I know that hon. Members on the Government side do not want to hear the words of Lord Devlin, but they are going to. He said:
It's a new court and it's a court in a politically controversial area and when you put judges into a politically controversial area it doesn't just do to assume that all the old procedures that worked well in the courts as they exist are going to work equally well.
When he was asked if it was contempt of court on which the men had been committed, Lord Devlin said,
Well it is. Its…formally it is so but in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of the people who are refusing to comply with what they think is a bad law it's not contempt in any sensible meaning of the word, it seems to me
and so he went on. He was referring to the inability of the Government to intervene. He said that the problem with bringing the law in was that it must take its course.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the same argument to those members of the National Front who this week have been appearing in court saying that the Race Relations Act, 1968, is not a good law and, therefore, they are under no obligation to obey it?

Mr. Wilson: I am quoting the decision of the Government to bring industrial relations into court. It is a political matter. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want to support the National Front, that is up to them. We do not. [Interruption.] I am quoting from Lord Devlin. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. I am quoting from Lord Devlin's view that in this matter the courts should not have the

power of contempt. Obviously they should under the normal laws passed by the House. Lord Devlin went on—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are entitled to laugh. The Official Solicitor might intervene on their behalf. That is all they must pray for now.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the law of contempt was removed from his own prices and incomes Acts?

Mr. Wilson: No it was in the Prices and Incomes Act. If the right hon. Gentleman is to intervene in the debate, perhaps he will say how many trade unionists went to jail under the Labour Government. Contempt provisions were not at any stage in the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).

Mr. Carr: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Clause—I accept that I cannot expect to him to remember it now—in the Bill that his right hon. Friend printed in April or May, 1970, or in "In Place of Strife" where contempt of court was removed from her proposals?

Mr. Wilson: The position in that Act—and I have checked it with the former Attorney-General and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—was that the only sanction in those proposals at any stage was the sanction of distraint of wages in respect of fines under the attachment proposals, which meant that they had to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, but I understand why he and his right hon. Friends, especially the Prime Minister, do not want to hear what Lord Devlin said.
The Prime Minister missed television last night and did not hear what Lord Devlin said. There are hon. Members who think Lord Devlin a better lawyer than the Solicitor-General, who was the author of the Act. Lord Devlin said:
there's a distinction you see between making a law which judges have to interpret and apply and between putting the court in the position as if it were identifying itself with the law…That's what I dislike, it's a political matter and it should be kept as a political matter…if the impression is given that somehow there is a court created which has got to make the Act work, that it's got to get the thing through somehow, well that's bad for the law".


If the Prime Minister does not have this text he can have it now and reply to it when he speaks. The House is entitled to a reply.
These are very grave charges. We were not allowed to debate them when the Bill was going through the House under the guillotine. Perhaps the Prime Minister will condescend to reply. The Secretary of State for Employment was on the television last night and this morning, talking about the British constitution as though he had just discovered it. If he did not actually invent it, one got the impression that the Solicitor-General had slipped him an advance proof copy. He gave the impression that he would be betraying the constitution if he took any action—if action is possible as a result of the Act of Parliament—to break the deadlock, which on all the evidence will not end unless the gates of Pentonville prison are sprung to let the dockers out.
Other Governments have been concerned with the maintenance of the constitution. None would deny to Winston Churchill the accolade of a great student of the constitution, a great expositor and a great defender of it. What did he do in1941? In a year of acute danger for Britain lodge officials at Betteshanger Colliery were committed to prison for a strike which was illegal under war-time emergency powers. Winston Churchill's Government negotiated with them, the Home Secretary signed their release, and in the case of nearly 1,000 miners who refused to pay fines the court was officially advised by the Employment Secretary's Department—the Ministry of Labour as it then was—not to enforce the fines. The facts are supplied in an appendix to the Donovan Commission Report, which hon. Members may like to study.
The Government must explain why they are too proud to follow the precedent set by Winston Churchill. It is that they will not or that they cannot? If they will not they have to justify the refusal which in the industrial state of the country can only be condemned as obstinate and wilful. If its is that they cannot act, and cannot because they are helpless victims of their own legislation, then let them cease from these pious constitutional reiterations on radio and television.
I do not need to catalgoue the dismal account of the paralysis spreading over the country. Not only the ports are affected, but coalfields, food markets, and, as stocks run down, if the Official Solicitor does not intervene, the housewife, whom the Prime Minister so assiduously wooed two years ago but has forgotten ever since, will suffer from shortages and still higher prices. The newspapers have stopped. It is right to say that, however strongly those responsible for the stoppages may feel, other people feel strongly, too, and in the interests of the imprisoned dockers themselves the whole case should be argued out and this and other debates reported for the public to judge all the issues involved in the action taken under the Government legislation.
I wish that I could appeal that all those who are loyally defending a vital principle as they see it should revert to our normal democratic practice and, faced with bad law, rally round Parliament and those of us in Parliament who are resolved to get rid of this odious legislation. That is right. But the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that there is a deep trade union principle involved. The Government should recognise, too, that the whole history of reform and democracy, including some of the rules of this House, has been built on those who, rightly or wrongly, have suffered for what they regarded as a principle. It does not lie in the mouths of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to decry the principles of other people—people they have never begun to understand. But do not let them delude themselves in default of the Official Solicitor. Behind those five there are another five, and 25, and there are battalions created by the Government's sowing of the dragon's teeth of provocative industrial law.
It is not only the industrial state of the nation which is now affected. There is the state of Government policy. Last Wednesday, to judge from the Press reactions which followed the No. 10 Downing Street meeting with the CBI and the TUC, the Prime Minister seemed to be in a state of euphoric triumph at having persuaded the TUC to join in the tripartite talks. He should have known that there was a long way to go and that the restraint and sacrifice for which he was asking would have to be matched


by restraint and sacrifice on his part—above all, the sacrifice of some of his more rooted ideologies.
The Prime Minister cannot be proud that those talks are now suspended. He knows how vitally important they are. But even when they resume they will take place in a different atmosphere. The TUC can agree but the Prime Minister knows that of itself it cannot deliver. Trade union leaders can agree but they cannot deliver. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand the nature of industrial democracy—the pressures, the fears even the sometimes irrational actions arising from fear or bitterness. For them it is easy explaining it all in terms of militants Communists, "Trots", Maoists and the rest.
The Prime Minister—and he will have to face this one; he will not be smirking if he continues with his policies—despite the Jones-Aldington Report, clearly regards Mr. Jones as one of the extremists he referred to in terms on 29th June at Question Time. If he does not, perhaps he will tell us who the extremists were he had in mind. But his legislation has weakened the power of responsible trade union leadership—and this he will eventually learn.
But the right hon. Gentleman deludes himself if he believes that the reactions in industry, going far beyond the docks, in the past two days are the work of extremists and trouble-makers. This is a grass roots, factory floor situation. I have personally heard this week the reactions of men I respect on the trade union side in industry. I have read the reactions of men I know to be moderates. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Notts miners are as moderate a group as we can find on the industrial scene? He may remember a former Member of the House, Sid Schofield, now secretary of the Yorkshire miners. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he is a very moderate leader. Yet he is calling for a TUC conference to consider a national strike.
The Prime Minister may deplore those feelings, but he should not underrate them. They are as real and, if disregarded, as potent as the beliefs of international speculators and sober corporation treasurers whose beliefs led them

into actions which forced the Government to devalue a month ago. The right hon. Gentleman has had to take them into account. He should take into account the views of moderate leaders of the trade union movement.
Whatever action the Government take now will be dangerously late. But to take no action at all is a prescription for national disaster. They give the impression in what they have said publicly that they see no way out unless the fairy queen from the Official Solicitor's office waves his wand again. [An Hon. Member: "You have said that."] It is important to go on saying it. The Government have relied on external intervention. They stopped the dock strike a month ago. Rolls-Royce was saved only by the vote of a maverick American senator. The Government are not in control of the matters in which they intervene. If the Official Solicitor succeeds again, his salary should be paid on a payments-by-results basis.
Some of my hon. Friends may feel—and I understand this feeling—that it is for the Government to take action without our help or to remain impaled on a hook of their own construction. I believe that where the Government have failed the Opposition have the duty, not to the Government but to the nation, to point the way for the Government to follow. There is only one way: this Act must go; and the Government must take the initiative. They must surely realise that the Act is dying anyway, dying on its own two feet. [An Hon. Member: "Like you."] The interruptions are now reaching a very high intellectual level! Some hon. Members opposite who have been shouting will not be here to see the repeal of the Act in the next Parliament.
The Secretary of State will be very wary of making any further references to the court of the kind which involved him in such humiliation a month ago. As long as the Act remains, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not make references, it will be sporadically and provocatively invoked by mainly small employers, some serious and dedicated, others living in a long-dead past, and yet other wild-cat employers of the type who infest those somewhat unsavoury political fringes of industry. We can have politically-motivated men on more than one side of industry, as witness the fringe organisations


which briefly flourish at election times in support of the Conservative Party.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman: repeal the Act. To help him I pledge the fullest co-operation of the Opposition in facilitating the necessary parliamentary procedures. We will go in his Lobby against some hon. Members opposite who will regret the retreat. But—and I am trying to help the right hon. Gentleman; I wish hon. Members opposite would understand this—if that involves too much loss of face—and the right hon. Gentleman's face week by week is becoming the most expensive commodity in British history; it is the face which stopped a thousand ships—then let the Government consider two important, limited but fundamental Amendments.
First, they should take the advice of Lord Devlin and take the contempt powers out of the Act and treat the court not as a court of law but as a commission. Secondly, they should look at the proposal made in the Guardian last weekend sugegsting that action to invoke the court shall be confined to those references taken on the initiative of the Minister, and it would be important that this should require the approval of this House before the court was invoked. If that were accompanied—and this would be very helpful—by a statement by the Government that the Secretary of State did not propose to invoke the law, that would do for the present—until we came in and despatched the Act, the court and, one hopes, the Solicitor-General to merciful oblivion.
But I am told—and perhaps the Prime Minister can confirm this—that the principle of private enterprise use of the Act by private firms, privateering, is so deeply ingrained in the Bill, so deeply incorporated in the warp and weft of its entire tapestry, that this would be too complicated and would take too long. If that is so—and the Secretary of State will be able to tell us—the answer is simple. Repeal is the only way—and the Prime Minister will be able to claim that this is a far, far better thing than he has ever done.
Let the Government therefore announce their intention to repeal, for we simply cannot afford to continue this process of provocation and industrial paralysis every few months as a result

of the Government's misreading of the industrial situation. When the toll of this week's stoppages is counted, the Government will be very near recording twice as many man-days lost through disputes in 25 months as were lost in nearly six years of the Labour Government—and the Prime Minister was elected on a mandate to stop this loss of man-days.
If they refuse to govern, if they refuse to act, let the Government resign. Let the responsibility for industrial relations and, with it, the strength and well being of British industry pass into the hands of those who will act because they know the British people and care about them.

4.1 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I should like if I may to address myself to the facts of the present situation and first as the Adjournment is on the general industrial situation, speak about the present position. I do not in any way underestimate the seriousness of this situation and, in particular, the fact that the docks are out and that there are some 50,000 dockers on strike. There are other working people on strike, particularly in parts of the coal mining industry and in the newspaper industry.
It is especially to be regretted that there should be a stoppage in the newspaper industry at such a time as this when Britain and the British people are entitled to have information. Most of the stoppages otherwise have been token stoppages, and our latest information is that, in addition to the 50,000 dockers on strike, there are 30,000 other workers who have come out, a total of 80,000. That is to be regretted, but it has to be compared with 24,500,000, which is the working population of the country.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: rose—

The Prime Minister: I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will not wish to talk of an industrial paralysis throughout the country in this situation.
Now I wish to deal with the facts—

Mr. Concannon: rose—

The Prime Minister: I have a great deal to say and it is a short debate. I am sorry, but I am unable to give way.


[Hon. Members: "Give way."] I shall not give way, because I have a great deal to say and the debate is short.
I wish now to deal with the facts of the case which led to this situation. It is right that the House as a whole should hear the details of this case. On 3rd July, Midland Cold Storage applied to the court on the ground that the men concerned—

Mr. Ron Lewis: This is disgraceful.

The Prime Minister: —were committing an unfair industrial practice by blacking. On 7th July the court ordered the men to desist. The court described its injunction as "ordering a truce". I wish to bring the details of this case to the attention of the whole House because they are essential to the argument put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to intervene in a debate on the present industrial situation only to recite to us from a brief facts that we read in the Press weeks ago?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is not a point of order.

The Prime Minister: I am certainly going to tell the House all the details of this case.
The purpose of the court order was to
secure a truce"—
these are the words of the court and I am therefore entitled to quote them—
in common fairness and elementary justice. The dockers would have complained if the court had accepted Midland's complaint without the fullest investigation. But such an investigation took time if it was to be full and fair to everybody. Therein lay the problem. Unless a truce were effected, Midland would be out of business and their employees dismissed before the investigation was completed. Such a result would be most unfair. Whether they were right or wrong the dockers would win anyway. That was not justice. Neither the dockers nor anybody else would suggest that it was.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: rose—

The Prime Minister: I cannot give way.
Those are the words of the court explaining why it made the order—that

there should be a truce in the blacking of Midland Cold Storage. The court went on to say—[Interruption.]—the House is entitled to hear the details of this case. The court went on to give a description of the blacking and the picketing and said:
It was no idle threat and the drivers knew it for the pickets recorded details of all vehicles which crossed the picket line. Thereafter the names of all concerned were circulated to docks throughout the country and dockers who worked there carried out the blacking. Each of the seven dockers was involved in one way or another in these threats and each was ordered to stop doing so.
Mr. Justice Megarry also summed up the effect on the firm and why the truce was asked for:
The effect of these acts on Midland's business had been disastrous. Instead of a weekly profit of hundreds of pounds, they were now running at a weekly loss of over £2,000. The great majority of traders and hauliers who used the store had ceased to do so. An object if not the main object of the picketing was to secure the employment of registered dock workers who were members of the Transport Union or some union other than USDAW in place of USDAW workers.
That is the situation which led up to this case. I believe that it is a situation which demands great attention. The court, because of that, ordered a truce. Is the House to say that the court which asked for a truce in that situation to enable a solution to be found is wrong? [Hon. Members: "The court ordered a truce."] It ordered a truce so that the matter could be investigated thoroughly and a solution found. It could be investigated by a committee, or the union and the employers, or by conciliation. All of those ways were available, and the court ordered a truce.
But the men concerned were not willing to stand by a truce. They also rejected the constitutional processes of their own unions. [Interruption.] This is the trouble with industrial relations—hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to reason or to listen. The men concerned refused a truce and rejected the constitutional processes of their own unions and the joint negotiating machinery of the industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition think he is right, therefore, to say that these men felt that they were unfairly challenged by the law of the State? They reject their own unions, they reject the joint negotiating machinery, and they reject the request for a truce in order


to find a solution. There can be no justification for saying—

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Jones-Aldington Committee was sitting to provide the answer. By the action of his Government under this Act the Jones-Aldington Committee has been severely endangered. Will he stop reciting the history that we have all read and tell us what he will do about it?

The Prime Minister: As the Jones-Aldington Committee was already sitting, how does the right hon. Gentleman justify the refusal of the workers to accept a ruce while it did its work? How does the right hon. Gentleman justify this firm being put out of business and the USDAW workers being put out of their jobs while the Jones/Aldington Committee was finding a solution? That is what the right hon. Gentleman has to justify, and he cannot do it.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I come from the dock industry, and this matters to me. I will try to put it in the right perspective. The dock workers rightly or wrongly according to one's individual judgment, sincerely believed that they were fighting for the right to work. It mattered to them and they felt it. No words and arguments of that kind will change a man's conscience. That is why they did what they did.

The Prime Minister: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but perhaps I am at liberty to point out that the USDAW workers were fighting for their jobs, too.
To continue with the facts in this case, the men who were asked for a truce were given a full fortnight from the moment of the injunction to reconsider the position. It was only on 21st July that the court committed to prison five out of the seven dockers against whom complaints had been laid. I draw the attention of the House to the words of the court in doing this:
Midland and their workers are entitled to be protected from these men who have constituted themselves judge and jury in their own cause. If the court cannot protect them by orders, it has no alternative but to resort to physical restraint.
The purpose of the Court was to protect the firm and those who were working in

it while a solution was found to these problems. Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition, what he has to justify is their refusal to do precisely that.

Mr. Stanley Orme: rose—

The Prime Minister: I am always ready to give way, but it means that others will not be able to speak.

Mr. Orme: Is the Prime Minister now saying that the Act was brought in so that at the end of the day trade unionists could be put in prison?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has given me no justification for giving way again.
When the court made its judgment it said:
But the issue is far greater even than good industrial relations.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman referred to.
The public at large through a properly elected Parliament has set up the industrial court. It has given this court the power and duty of protecting the rights of all workers, unions and employers in accordance with the law. The issue is whether these men are to be allowed to opt out of the rule of law. Can they pick and choose, relying on it for the protection of their homes and families but rejecting it when even temporarily it obstructs their industrial objectives?
That is the issue to which the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself in any way at all. That is the issue which the court had to decide. Were these men to be allowed to opt out of the law of this country? The court decided "No". That is the issue on which the House has to express its opinion. If the Opposition divide the House tonight they will be doing so unequivocally in favour of being able to opt out of the rule of law. [Interruption.]
I did not listen to Lord Devlin on "Panorama". I was in discussion with the TUC throughout the evening. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to quote the interview, but I shall quote the authorities of the courts. What the court has said is that these men are in no different position from any other citizen who defies a court order under any other Act. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute that, he should tell the country so. That is the position.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman challenging me? I quoted Lord Devlin, and the right hon. Gentleman is singularly unwilling to reply. What I said was that this should not have been in the Act. When human considerations are involved, matters should not be dealt with in an ordinary court.

The Prime Minister: With great respect, it is not in the Act. The High Court has powers to deal with contempt and to use physical restraint. This is acourt with similar powers to the High Court, and it has these powers. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to say that it should be a tribunal or a similar body, he is entitled to use that argument, but as it is an Act of Parliament and as the court has been set up he is not entitled to say that that Act and that court should be defied or that the court should not use its powers. I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying that this is a new court under a new Act and it ought not to be observed. That is a doctrine of anarchy which I believe the House will reject.
Let us look at the situation before—

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote one word I have said to the effect that the court should not be observed? I said that the court should not be there with those powers, but I said that the law must be obeyed. Will he admit that I said that?

The Prime Minister: The court is there and the Act is there and the right hon. Gentleman should immediately tell the five workers that they should obey the court. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to say that this position has been brought about by the Act—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] I shall certainly not withdraw. If the right hon. Gentleman holds the view, he says he holds, he should tell the dockers to obey the court.
As the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to blame the Government and the Act, let us look at the position before the Act. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General pointed out at the weekend that injunctions against the pickets in the Midlands Cold Storage dispute could have been obtained without the Industrial Relations Act ever having been in existence. Mr. Justice Megarry in the

Chancery Court last week clearly expressed the view that these pickets would not have been entitled to any of the protection afforded by Sections 2 and 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, or by the Trade Disputes Act introduced and passed by the Labour Government in 1965. [Interruption.] Members cannot dispute that; I am stating the view of the court.
Let us now take the position supposing the trade disputes protection had applied to the Midland Cold Storage disput. Trade union Members on the Opposition benches who have been concerned in these matters know perfectly well that the protection applied only to inducing or threatening to induce breaches of contract of employment.

An Hon. Member: What about the Torquay case?

The Prime Minister: I am coming to that.

Mr. R. T. Paget: rose—

The Prime Minister: In this dispute we are largely concerned not with contracts of employment—[Interruption.] I would have thought that the House would want to debate this matter seriously. In this dispute we are largely concerned not with contracts of employment but with commercial contracts. In other words even under the old law, under the Liberal Party law of 1906 and under the Labour Party's law of 1965, injunctions could have been obtained against these pickets.

An Hon. Member: How many were obtained?

The Prime Minister: If these injunctions had not been complied with, those who defied the order of the court would have been clearly liable to imprisonment in exactly the same way. To say otherwise is to deceive the House and the country.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he reconciles the judicial ruling he has read with the judgment of Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, in 1969, Chancery Court proceedings, page 139, in particular that part of the judgment which will be found at F, G and H of that page?

The Prime Minister: It may be very clever of the right hon. Gentleman to have been advised by his right hon. and learned Friend to produce that sort of question but what good does it do to a serious debate? I am dealing with the situation in the court and the plain fact is that the situation before this Act was exactly the same. There could have been an injunction and if that had not been observed then the men could have been sent to prison for contempt.
I read last Sunday that the right hon. Member for Blackburn(Mrs. Castle) said that if the Labour Party had been returned to power and she had been allowed to put her Industrial Relations Bill on the Statute Book no docker would be in prison today. What the hon. Lady has forgotten is that even after the Labour Government had taken out of their legislation virtually everything to which the TUC was opposed, her published Bill would have left the legal position of those who induced a breach of commercial contract substantially unchanged. Exactly the same consequences would have followed. The same penalties would have been there, with those consequences.
Therefore I must put another question to the Leader of the Opposition. Is he saying that in these matters, specifically a breach of contract, in other matters of industrial relations in which the weak are being protected, be it union, employees or a firm, there are to be no sanctions of any kind in the ultimate event? If the right hon. Gentleman says there should be attachment of earnings, I am advised that those concerned have to attend the court for the attachment to be made. How is the right hon. Gentleman to behave if they refuse to attend court for that matter? The right hon. Gentleman must face up to the fact that eventually, in all circumstances, if there is to beany order at all—and I think the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) will agree here—a court of law has to have a sanction which it can use.

Mr. Wilson: On the question of the law before 1971—in other words, not the Industrial Relations Act of this Government—on the whole, after consideration, I prefer the judgment of Lord Denning to that of the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the question of contempt pro-

ceedings under this Act, I prefer the views of Lord Devlin to which the right hon. Gentleman has cleverly abstained from replying.

The Prime Minister: I have quoted the views of those in the Industrial Relations Court and the Chancery Court. I will of course take Lord Denning's views into consideration, but I am not dealing with those at the moment. The points I have dealt with require answers from the right hon. Gentleman if he is to take this view. Those who support the five dockers in their defiance, who advocate massive strikes in sympathy, should say whether they support defiance only of those laws enacted by this Government or whether they would similarly support defiance of the Acts of 1906 and 1965. I do not believe that they would, and they ought to accept that the laws of this Parliament and the courts of the land should be obeyed.
We are coming near to the point when the individual citizen seeks to choose which law he will obey, and in a democracy where laws are passed in a Parliament based on universal suffrages, that is an intolerable proposition for the Opposition to proclaim. One day, presumably, they will expect to be called back to office. Would they be content in power with the situation in which individuals begin to decide which laws they will comply with, which taxes they will pay, which courts they will resist? I see the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) shaking his head. Last Friday I gave him full credit for having had the guts to state the real position.

Mr. Reg Prentice: Will the Prime Minister at least acknowledge that what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech just now, what he has said consistently and what many of us have said consistently is that we do believe that the laws of this country should be obeyed? We think that this is a bad law and that it should be changed but that in the meantime it should be obeyed. He should not build a speech on pretending that we have taken a stand that we have not taken.

The Prime Minister: I have given the righthon. Gentleman credit for what he said and it was very different from


what was being said elsewhere in his Party. But if right hon. Gentlemen are putting that doctrine forward—also put forward by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—that people can choose the legislation which they are prepared to obey and the courts which they are prepared to accept, then it will not only be dockers who will take advantage of this new doctrine. [Hon. Members: "Who says that?"] Let the right hon. Gentleman repudiate it and urge those dockers to accept the ruling of the court.

Mr. Wilson: I have already said in this speech and every other that the law must be obeyed. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman now to say who on this side of the House said what he is now attributing to us.

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reads the "Tolpuddle Martyrs' Manifesto" of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) last Saturday. He will see it there all right.
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to prove that it is only under this Act that injunctions were sought and that otherwise the system has worked perfectly well. Of course he is wrong. When the right hon. Gentleman was in power injunctions were sought and made against pickets wrongfully interfering with contractual relations. This was done on at least three occasions. It was done in 1967 at Bernard Sunley's in London, in 1969 in the Torquay Hotel Company case and in 1970 at Johnson Matthey. The right hon. Gentleman said that during his time there was no case of imprisonment. Why was this so? It was because in all these cases the order of the court was complied with immediately and scrupulously.
There was no difference. They are both courts with the power of the High Court. They are both Acts of Parliament and they are both dealing with commercial contracts. Therefore there was absolutely no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not say that this order of the court should be complied with by the five dockers, which he has so far refused to say. These earlier injunctions were ordered by the court and carried out immediately.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Is not the explanation this? Historically and recently trade unionists have obeyed the injunctions of the courts. They are disobeying the injunctions of this court because it is regarded as a piece of political mechanism infiltrated into the administration of justice of this country and the fact of the refusal of the injunction is a measure of the refusal of the working people of this country to accept the jurisdiction of this court.

The Prime Minister: I have the greatest respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but that is an extraordinary argument for a former Law Officer of the Crown to put forward. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not saying that there was any justification for resisting these injunctions. There was no justification. This is a branch of the High Court set up under an Act of Parliament. I should have thought a former Law Officer would have been the first to make that clear to every trade unionist. [Interruption.] Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends have agreed, when the Restrictive Practices Act was passed in 1956 and the Restrictive Practices Court was set up with the power of the High Court, that the employers were justified if they had said "This is a purely political Act set up by a Government for a specific purpose. Therefore, we are justified in resisting its orders."? The Opposition would never have accepted that for one moment. I am astonished that a former Law Officer should take that attitude.
We all know that the industrial practices of picketing and blacking started as attempts by trade unionists to counter the overwhelming power of employers. How different from their use in this case and similar cases today! We now see employers, who have no dispute with their work force, are on good terms with them and their elected trade union representatives, and are pursing a legitimate business in a legitimate way—[Interruption.]—I should have thought all those things were something to be satisfied about, both by employers and trade unionists—find camped outside their gates men who they have never seen before, with whom they have no connection, and who have no constitutional authority in the trade union movement.

Mr. Clinton Davis: rose—

The Prime Minister: They are men who use blacking and picketing to destroy that firm and the livelihood of its employees. [Interruption.] We cannot be surprised that in such circumstances those who are aggrieved, sometimes employees and sometimes employers, should look to the law and to the courts. Where else can they go for redress in the circumstances?

Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a matter of common courtesy that when an hon. Member whose constituency is affected by a matter of this kind the Prime Minister should give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): No. It is entirely within the discretion of an hon. Member whether to give way or not.

The Prime Minister: I have given way many times and many hon. Members wish to speak.
Where else, in those circumstances, can the aggrieved go for redress? Knowing these facts, hon. Gentlemen opposite with a real knowledge of the trade unions must be sickened by the claptrap which they have now heard, comparing the five men who are now in prison in the circumstances which I have described to the men who were sentenced at Tolpuddle 150 years ago. What a comparison! [Interruption.] The practices which were invented to protect the weak against the strong are now being used unconstitutionally to impose the will of the strong on the weak. That is what is happening. I again remind the House of the words of Mr. Justice Megarry:
It is not a case of dockers fighting to save their jobs but all dockers fighting to take the jobs of dockers by putting Midland's business in peril. That is the law of the jungle, but the law of the jungle is not law but force. Those who obtain jobs in that way might in their turn have their jobs taken from them by other people with greater power or cunning. It is the weak who would go to the wall, both employers and employees. It is the function of the law to protect the weak against the unfair use of power.
It has been said that we are seeking a confrontation. We have heard much in industrial relations debates about confrontation. In the case of the five dockers, who was confronting whom? [Interruption.] As the right hon. Member

for East Ham, North said in a moment of lucidity and honesty, for which he is now being reviled below the Gangway, these dockers had been trying to become martyrs for weeks. I give him full credit for publicly saying so. The House will recall the anger of the dockers when they found they were prevented from going to prison on the previous occasion. [Interruption.]
Let us look at the real situation. The modernisation of the docks has created a grave social problem. It is a real problem which concerns Governments, unions and employees, and the courts have asked for a truce. It is a problem whose importance no one denies. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentleman below the Gangway are doing themselves and their trade unions no good by their behaviour.
In recent weeks we have seen two different ways of approaching the problem. On the one hand, there is the Jones/Aldington Committee. Its results were announced yesterday. That Committee, on which employers and unions have been working together to tackle the real problem of the industry, produced a series of agreed conclusions which I believe will commend themselves to all concerned. [Interruption.] Why did the right hon Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition not tell the dockers to have a truce whilst a solution was worked out? Let the right hon. Gentleman answer that. One of the Committee's conclusions involves financial assistance by the Government to supplement the measures which the industry—[Interruption.] I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take his responsibility as Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I should like a truce now. I should like the Jones/Aldington Report, which has been endangered by the Act, to go through. Will the right hon. Gentleman, before he sits down, instead of throwing it all at us—we are very patient and we will listen to anything he wants to say—tell us how the Government are going to get out of this mess?

The Prime Minister: The Government will not interfere or attempt to overrule the courts of this land. I should have thought the Labour Party and the Leader of the Labour Party would have been the


first above all, to remember what happened to a Government who interfered with the law of this land and with the courts. The right hon. Gentleman should read his history and recall what happened to the first Labour Government.
I shall now deal with the Jones-Aldington Committee. One of its conclusions involves financial assistance by the Government to supplement the measures which the industry will be taking and paying for. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment told the House yesterday, we are ready to give that assistance when normal working is resumed.—[Interruption.] Is the right hon. Gentleman criticising the Government for taking part in a tripartite arrangement to help the docks? If he is, I thoroughly condemn him for doing so, and he had better say so frankly.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The words I used were justified: conscience money.

The Prime Minister: I have seldom heard a more despicable phrase from anybody who has held high office in this country. [Interruption.] I am not going to be shouted down by anybody. The proposal of the Committee is that for a period of five months the maximum voluntary severance entitlement—[Interruption.] It is obvious that hon. Members opposite are not interested in the dockers in any way at all. The proposal is that the maximum voluntary severance entitlement for unfit registered dockers and those over 55—[An Hon. Member: "Bring back Reggie."]—should be increased from the present level of about £2,300 to £4,000, and the minimum for the unfit from £1,000 to £2,000. [Interruption.] I hope that when the Press resumes publication the country outside will be told about the attitude of the Labour Party to any improvement in the position of dockers.
During this period in which the improvement will be made the Government will meet the full cost of severance to those two categories of men. A Supplementary Estimate will be laid before the House in due course, and in the meantime, so that the scheme can start as soon as possible, recourse will be had to the Contingency Fund. That is one approach—through investigation, conciliation, persuasion and a joint effort by all con-

cerned. [An Hon. Member: "What conciliation?"]
The other approach has been that taken by the dockers. They decided, quite arbitarily, that work in a particular firm should be taken away from fellow trade unionists and given to dockers. They tried to impose that decision by force, by disrupting the business of the firm and destroying the livelihood of their fellow workers. They refused to desist when their fellow workers requested them to do so. They refused to desist when a court ordered them to do so. They refused to desist, even to allow the problem to be examined and a sensible solution to be found. They have been resolved to take advantage of the problem, not in order to improve the livelihood of their fellow workers but in order to damage it; not to bring about harmony in the docks but to create disruption. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that to be the truth.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: What are you going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: They know that these men are exploiting traditional trade union solidarity for ends which have nothing to do with genuine trade union aims.
Last Saturday the right hon. Member for Bristol, South East—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

The Prime Minister: I am sorry I cannot give way. I am nearing the end of my remarks.

Mr. Heffer: Why does he not give way?

The Prime Minister: Last Saturday the right hon. Member—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows the rules of the House as well as anybody. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member must sit down. We must have the rules kept, and this is all the more essential when feelings run high.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have kept strictly to the rules of the House. All I wished to


do was to raise a point with the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not a point of order for me. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I hope we may still observe the rules of order in Parliament, even if the hon. Gentleman will not support them outside.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East wrote about seeking respect for our traditional human values. What are these values? Do they relate to men acting unofficially?

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister just said that I have to abide by the rules of the House here, even if I do not accept them outside. Is he suggesting that I am not accepting the rules of this House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not en titled, or able, to answer for the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member knows that cannot possibly be a point of order for me.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East wrote last week of seeking respect for our tradi tional human values—

Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister said that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was not obeying the rules—

The Prime Minister: No.

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend had to obey the rules in this House even if he did not obey them outside. The right hon. Gentleman is impunging the integrity of my hon. Friend. Is not my hon. Friend entitled to some protection from the Chair when this arrogant Prime Minister makes that kind of accusation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a serious point of order. What the Prime Minister said, as I understood him, was that the hon. Gentleman had to obey the rules of order in this House. Obviously, the rules of order in this House do not apply outside.

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to question the hon. Gentleman's integrity either inside or outside the House; I make that quite clear.
I return to what was said by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East last Saturday about seeking respect for our traditional human values. I was asking what are these traditional human values which the Opposition tonight are seeking to respect. Are they respecting men acting unofficially, blacking firms, putting fellow trade unionists out of work, attempting to drive a firm with which they have no connection out of business? Are they defending the traditional values by refusing to allow time for conciliation?

Mr. Orbach: What are you doing about the situation?

The Prime Minister: Are they defending the traditional values by advocating open defiance of the law? Is this what the Opposition stand for in this debate? Is this what they are urging trade unionists to work for? Is this what they are to vote upon tonight? It is a distortion and perversion of everything we have stood for in this House and in this country.
The issue does not lie between the Industrial Relations Act on the one hand and trade unionists on the other hand. It lies between the two approaches I have mentioned. It lies between conciliation and persuasion on the one hand, and bullying and disruption on the other.
Despite what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I suppose I have had more meetings in the last two years with trade unionists and their different bodies than anybody in any previous Government. I have listened to them patiently because I believe they have a right to a very important say in our legislation and in our economy.

Mr. Harold Wilson: rose—

The Prime Minister: I cannot give way again.
I have done this because I believe the priority in trade union leadership is to improve the standard of living of its members. I believe that the co-operation about which we have been having meetings recently on the whole economy can be fruitful and can have advantages for


the whole country. I do not believe that the trade union leaders and the great majority of trade unions will throw away the advantages and fall into the trap prepared for them by those who have provoked and engineered the present situation.
There is a choice also for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let them be in no doubt about the meaning of their vote tonight. If they vote tonight they will be voting against finding solutions through conciliation in industrial relations. They will be voting—[Interruption.] They had better listen to what it is against which they will be voting. They will be voting against constitutional authority in the trade unions. They will be voting against seeking a rational solution to genuine problems. They will be voting against the interests of millions of trade unionists and against the rule of law. They will be voting for the doctrine that irresponsible industrial strength shall with impunity override the interests of the community, the rights of individuals and the rule of law. It is for that that they will be voting. If that is their position, Heaven help the party opposite! If that is their position, they had better say so openly, when the people will judge them.

Mr. Orbach: Heil Hitler!

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: This debate will not be televised and it may not be reported in the Press. But anyone who has attended it in any capacity will realise the bitter divisions in industrial affairs which characterise this House. Unless those divisions can be healed and unless the bitterness can be overcome I see nothing but economic chaos for the country.
I have only two basic assertions to make, and my speech is in support of both. The first is that, whatever view one takes, the implications for the economy of the country and for our whole pattern of industrial relations are as grave as any industrial situation to have faced the country since the General Strike. The second is that no one who has been involved in these matters comes out of them well or wisely.
I happen to be in a slightly different position [Interruption.] My colleagues

and I voted for the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill. Our reason for doing so was that we believed that there were certain aspects of the Bill which were valuable and which could help improve our industrial society. But we made it plain—[Interruption.] I am not answerable to the Labour Party and, as far as I can see, there are certain hon. Members on the Opposition benches who fall into the same category. We made it plain that there were certain matters, not least the confrontation which might result from criminal powers and the danger of matters of contempt arising out of the legislation, that we wished to see amended in Committee. We gave notice that if those Amendments were not carried we should vote against the Third Reading, and so we did.
We made precisely the same point to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when she introduced her Bill. With my colleague Richard Wainwright, the former Member for Colne Valley, I made it clear to her that we intended to support the Second Reading but that unles certain matters were amended we should vote against any subsequent proposals, and that we did.
No one can deny that a situation in which talks between the Government, the TUC and the CBI have been postponed, in which there is a strike at the docks and in which there is a very real chance of a General Strike presents for the country a very grave situation whatever view one may take of the dispute.
I believe that both management and trade unionism are vital elements in our society. But I do not believe that at any time either of those elements should dominate society or be thought to have, if not the exclusive, the pervading ear of the Government of the day. Whatever criticisms may be made against my own party—and 2 million people voted for it—no one will suggest that the party that I have the honour to belong to is the political wing of either of those two interests. Neither are we under any financial obligation to either of them.
Therefore, I should like to examine very briefly the mam actors in this tragedy. I turn first to the most powerful, which is the Government of the day. It is possible to argue, although, with respect to the Prime Minister, there is a different legal interpretation, that the


commitment to prison for contempt could have flowed from an interlocutory injunction under the 1906 and 1965 Trades Disputes Acts. I have read the view of the Attorney-General. I have read other views. But the point is that the Industrial Relations Act has changed the whole climate of opinion towards the courts. That is what is important. It is not whether technically this might have happened had an application been made under one of two previous Acts. It is whether the situation and the climate would have been such that this confrontation would have been arrived at.
I believe that Lord Donovan was right when he made it plain that if into industrial relations, which after all is a matter of human relations between one man and another, one imports the whole majesty of the law and all the terrors, deterrents and punishments of the law, one induces a situation in which there will be confrontation. What the Industrial Relations Act has done is to create tensions making it much more likely that an individual will defy the law of the land than may have been the case before it was passed.
It is no good the Government saying that they had a mandate to introduce it. Many Governments have many mandates to introduce many measures. The law of the mandate does not override the law of what is practicable and acceptable. If the Prime Minister has any doubts on that issue he should ask the Leader of the Opposition for his views on the Iron and Steel Bill between 1964 and 1966.
This Government are very keen to criticise the Labour Party for being Socialist doctrinaires. But there is nothing more doctrinaire than the Industrial Relations Act. It was drafted when the present Government were in opposition, before the Donovan Report was published—

The Prime Minister: indicated dissent.

Mr. Thorpe: —and even when faced with the Donovan Report this Government were not prepared to change one comma or semi-colon in their draft legislation. It was pre-Donovan. [Interruption.] I am asked why I voted. Because I believe in the right of trade unionists to have information regarding their companies and in the right of appeal against unjust dismissals. I can enumerate other

factors to the advantage of trade unionists and the making of better industrial relations. I voted against Third Reading because I believed that to bring in the law for the settlement of industrial relations was profoundly wrong. As the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech with which I found myself chiefly in disagreement, said, the Betteshanger Colliery dispute of 1941 proved that.
The first point is that the Government's psychology has been wrong because it has created a climate in which it is more likely that people will welcome a confrontation with the law than co-operation with it.

Mr. John Page: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that the fact that a large number of railway men on two occasions called off industrial action in response to the request of the NIRC pinpoints the difference between them and this small number of dockers who many people feel were hell bent on being sent to prison?

Mr. Thorpe: I am coming to that point. We have all the dockers out on strike and we are possibly on the verge of a general strike. I should think that was the most up-to-date commentary on the effect of the Industrial Relations Act.
The second actor to whom I would refer is Sir John Donaldson. I do so diffidently and declare an interest as a lawyer. I have never felt that any person should be precluded from sitting on the bench because he has had a political past. Were that the case, it would be a new form of political test which I should be the first to deplore. I do not underestimate the qualities and the integrity of Sir John Donaldson. However, when one has a distinguished lawyer, such as he is, with views on industrial affairs which have been as pronounced as his have been in the past, I believe it was not showing the total sensitivity that one would expect of the Lord Chancellor in appointing him to the NIRC. I do not believe that the subsequent track record of appeals is a factor which redresses the balance. I am not criticising the learned judge. I am merely saying that his appointment to a court which was likely to be far more controversial than any other court or any other division of the High Court was not the most sensitive appointment which could have


been made in the circumstances. I put it no higher than that. I am not attacking the learned judge. I am merely saying that a more sensitive and, therefore, acceptable choice might have been made.

Mr. Peter Rees: By the same token, was it not perhaps insensitive to appoint Lord Donovan, who, in his time, had been a Labour Member of Parliament, to head the Commission on Industrial Relations?

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. and learned Gentleman has had such a distinguished career at the Bar that he has obviously not been in touch with politics for as long as some of us here. Lord Donovan was appointed to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions. The report which he produced, to which unfortunately this Government and their predecessors paid far too little attention, indicated the force of what I am saying—namely, that the political antecedents of a distinguished lawyer should not preclude him from office or appointment to Royal Commissions, but that on every occasion of such appointment a certain sensitivity is required on the part of those who appoint him.
I move to the next actor in this tragedy—the trade unions themselves. Nobody can say that this is Lord Melbourne and the Tolpuddle Martyrs of 1834 all over again.

Mr. Orme: That is what they said in 1834.

Mr. Thorpe: Whatever may have been said in 1834—I do not live as much in the past as some hon. Gentlemen—we know the facts. This is not a Tolpuddle Martyrs' situation; this is not a vicious lockout by employers backed by the Government. The Government may have a part to play. This matter arises from a dispute between the members of two unions, USDAW and the Transport and General Workers Union, who are competing for certain work.

Mr. Orme: That is not true.

Mr. Thorpe: It is a fact. Indeed, it may almost be in breach of the Bridlington Agreement.

Mr. Heffer: It is not.

Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Gentleman thinks there is a difference between the poaching of members and actually demanding that one group of people should switch to one's own union, I agree that poaching is the better of the two.
Therefore, at the very moment when the Jones/Aldington Committee was at work, the timing of an inter-union dispute on this matter was extremely ill-judged and unnecessary. The one thing that was wanted was an agreement which could be accepted within the unions. Therefore, I think the timing was ill-judged.

Mr. Heffer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as it gives me an opportunity of pointing out—

Mr. Thorpe: I gave way but not so that the hon. Member can make the intervention which he was unable to make with the Prime Minister.

Mr. Heffer: It is on the same important point. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Jones/Aldington Committee. The second recommendation of that Committee's interim report very clearly points out that
stuffing and stripping of groupage containers carried to and from their ports is performed that as good terms and conditions as obtain where such work is carried out under proper agreements between the unions and port authorities or other major groupage operators.
The essence of the whole situation is that the conditions and terms of employment are not as good. The report upholds the dockers in this struggle.

Mr. Thorpe: I do not normally thank the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing my speech, but I do so now. The hon. Gentleman has proved the entire point that here was a body of men, sympathetic and knowledgeable, going into the problem and producing a result which was agreed between Lord Aldington and Jack Jones. All that was asked was that whilst they were deliberating and producing an agreement there should be a truce, no more or no less. I cannot believe that was an unreasonable demand.
Finally, I move to the last of the actors in this tragedy—the Opposition themselves. We have had two views on the situation from Ham. We had one from the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) at


the Dispatch Box this afternoon. We had another from the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). The one is not a lawyer; the other is. I confess, I prefer the first reaction of the non-lawyer to the legal situation to the considered legal opinion of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North, who, I confess, appears to have had his views somewhat changed or modified by discussion with his colleagues, blurted out the truth when he was first quoted. He ended by saying that he deplored the Industrial Relations Act. In that he spoke for the whole of the Labour Party. I hope he also spoke for the whole of the Labour Party—I quote from The Guardian; no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell me whether it is inaccurate—when he said:
I am angry with people like Bernie Steer. They are absolutely wrong to organise picketing and blacking which has not got the support of their union. They are even more wrong to defy the order of the court. They have been looking for martyrdom for weeks. I have no sympathy for them and I do not think they deserve the support of other workers.

Mr. Orme: They have got it.

Mr. Thorpe: On the radio this morning Mr. Vic Feather suggested what the Government ought to do, and my final point is to say what I think the Government should do, and here I disagree with Mr. Feather. He said that there is a Lord Chancellor, there are Attorney-Generals and there are Solicitor-Generals, and they should make known their views. Surely the essence of the rule of law in this country is that the only people who can make laws are the Members of this Parliament. Were it otherwise, we would be subject to the decree of any dictator.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman voted against the Act.

Mr. Thorpe: And I voted against retrospective legislation when the Labour Government introduced a Bill which had the support of the Tory Front Bench.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The Liberal Party is like a rocking horse—all motion and no progress.

Mr. Thorpe: If I thought that I would not be out of order, I should in a friendly way refer to the hon. Gentleman as being like the grocer's cat—all piss and wind.

The second factor—but it may be denied by the Opposition Front Bench—is that the only people who interpret and enforce the laws are the judges, the judiciary, and the moment the Executive starts to interefere with the judiciary one of our basic freedoms goes.
The third thing is that the obligation which the citizen has in return for the guarantee of an independent judiciary and for Parliament being the only body which can promulgate laws is to respect and obey them whether he likes it or not. If, out of this, the Government can learn not to be so stubborn in trade union negotiations and go back to the letter of pre-Donovan law, and if the trade unions can learn that the rule of law is basic to this society and that nobody is above it, then both sides may have learned something which will be to the benefit of the whole of this country and its future prosperity.
I respect laws which are passed even though I might criticise them. When one finds that laws are wrong, one seeks to work through the normal democratic processes to amend them. It is quite clear that the present state of the law will inevitably continue to bring about confrontations between the trade union movement and management or the Government or the nationalised industries. I believe that the first thing we have to do is to set up a working party under the chairmanship of someone like Lord Devlin or Lord Donovan—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: He is dead. [Laughter.]

Mr. Thorpe: The fact that one mentions someone like Lord Devlin or Lord Donovan and the latter is dead is no cause for mirth. The working party must be under the chairmanship of somebody who is respected as being totally impartial, and I gave two examples.
There are certain sections of the Act relating to unfair industrial practices which will have to be scrapped—there is no doubt about that—and in exchange there must be some movement by the trade unions towards acceptance of registration. There will have to be some new form of conciliation machinery, and agreements will have to be referable to the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Acts so that it can be seen that


nobody in this country—nobody—is able to abuse a monopolistic position.
We should then move on to a works constitution Measure very much on the German model, but varied to the needs of our economic and industrial society, which would make works councils mandatory for any firm with more than 200 employees.

Mr. Orme: We do not want that rubbish.

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but I should prefer to have the economic prosperity of West Germany, the comparatively better industrial relations and the greater rights which German workers have in comparison with workers in this country.

Mr. Orme: They are non-unionists.

Mr. Thorpe: I should like to see our company laws amended so that workers have substantially the same rights at annual meetings as shareholders to fire or elect the directors, who, after all, very much influence their lives, and influence them very much more than that of the average shareholder.
I believe that the people of this country are shocked at the damage that will be done to the economy. I believe they are shocked that we have not yet evolved a civilised industrial society in which there can be give and take and co-operation on both sides. If the Government have learned that there is a stage when they must stop being stubborn and sticking to what they said they were going to do 10 years ago and face the realities of the situation, and if the trade union movement likewise realises that the rule of law is basic to the liberties of everyone in this country, we shall begin to change industrial relations, and with it the health of our society.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I must follow some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). Some of his solutions, whether or not we agree with them, are somewhat long-term, and we are facing something that is rather urgent.
Most of the trouble arises from the fact that many trade unionists do not understand what the Industrial Relations Act

is about. At lunchtime today I was informed on very good authority of a letter that had been written by a senior official of a trade union in Merseyside to Mr. Len Neal, a member of the CIR, complaining that he had put five people from the docks in gaol and asking him to release them. It is rather interesting that a senior trade union official can so confuse the CIR and the NIRC.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Name him.

Mr. Redmond: I am not going to be led into that sort of thing.

Mr. Lewis: Why not?

Mr. Redmond: Because I do not have his name with me. If the hon. Gentleman cares to get in touch with me after the debate, I shall see whether I can help him.

Mr. Lewis: Let his name appear in Hansard.

Mr. Redmond: I am sorry, but I have it from a reliable authority that a trade union official has written to Mr. Len Neal of the CIR.

Mr. Lewis: Give us the authority.

Mr. Redmond: I am sorry, but I am not going to be led any further into this as I do not have the permission of the person from whom I received the information to reveal his name. If the hon. Gentleman cares to see me afterwards, I shall see whether I can get permission for that to be done.
It is a tragedy that a situation like this can arise, but it is also a dreadful tragedy that five people should find themselves in gaol because they have been so misled as to believe themselves to be martyrs. The blame for this lies on those who ought to know better. It lies on the people who have misled these dockers, and they have done so because they do not understand what the Act is about.
The plain fact is that but for the intervention of the NIRC the dockers would have won their case by brute force, to the exclusion of everyone else. I see no difference between five people saying, "We are martyrs because we do not recognise the Act" and an hon. Member saying yesterday afternoon that he welcomed the opportunity of saying that he treated the National Industrial Relations


Court with contempt. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's contempt is far worse than that of the five men who are now in gaol because the hon. Gentleman should know better.
This Government did not invent the law of contempt. The law of contempt has been there from time immemorial.

Mr. Paget: It is true that this Government did not invent the law of contempt, but they did invent this court which is naturally treated with contempt. When it is sought to disguise a purely political instrument as a court, that court is, and will be, and deserves to be treated with contempt.

Mr. Redmond: It is extraordinary that an hon. and learned Gentleman should refer to a branch of the High Court in such terms. It is a great pity that his legal training does not overcome his political instincts and let him recognise the true facts. The court having been set up, whether the Opposition like it or not, if it were to be upset by Government intervention—

Mr. Paget: It is a bogus court.

Mr. Redmond: —we should have a negation of democracy and the beginning of the use of anarchy.
Nevertheless, something must be done to help to get the dockers out of jail. I suggest that we might bring in the services of Mr. Len Neal of the Commission on Industrial Relations and ask him to go with Lord Aldington and Mr. Jack Jones to Pentonville to meet these five men and, without any television cameras around and without any of the propaganda being thrown at them, explain in detail and at length to these men what the Industrial Relations Court is all about and what the Aldington-Jones Report is all about.

Mr. Tom Driberg: One of the five men in prison is a constituent of mine. I saw him in prison on Saturday. Rightly, the governor always asks a prisoner whether he wants to see somebody before allowing him to receive a visitor. If anybody went to try to explain the Industrial Relations Act to my constituent he would get a very loud raspberry.

Mr. Redmond: That is the sort of damage that has been done to the whole

of democracy by hon. Members opposite, particularly by the hon. Gentleman, whom I have just criticised for what he said in the House yesterday afternoon. If he has so blocked the situation by seeing his constituent in jail that his constituent is now not prepared to see a reasonable man, a trade union official, and the chair man of a commission, it is an appalling situation and adreadful commentary on what has gone on. The hon. Gentleman should do what he can to persuade his constituent to accept the suggestion I have made. I do not think anyone could sink lower than people who say that they will block any means of communicating with people who are in jail. I believe that these five unfortunate men who have got into jail through being misled—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: rose—

Mr. Redmond: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady. This is a short debate, and I must press on.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that this is a short debate. He is prolonging it by refusing to withdraw a remark about myself which had no substance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Redmond: I have said nothing that I could regret. I am merely asking for the co-operation of people whom we are entitled to ask for co-operation. I am sure that, if the five unfortunate men who are in jail could understand what the advantages could be of co-operating with the Act, they would purge their contempt fairly quickly and that would be the end of the trouble.
Over the last three months no fewer than 12 members of trade unions within my constituency have asked to see me privately. They know full well that I do not hold surgeries. I invariably meet people in their homes. These 12 union members have asked me to meet them privately. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I see nothing wrong with my going to see my constituents in their houses where they can talk to me in confidence and in comfort.
I repeat that no fewer than 12 members of trade unions have asked to see me privately in the last three months and have asked me how they could set about forming new trade unions—what they call breakaway unions—because they are fed up with the way their own unions are behaving in relation to the Act and they want to get into unions that will be registered under the Act. My advice to them has been that I would give them no such advice and that they should go to the trade union branch meetings and make their opinions felt.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The hon. Gentleman said that he has visited at least 12 of his constituents. When he visits his constituents, do they put the kettle on when he goes in or when he comes out?

Mr. Redmond: I see hundreds of my constituents in the course of a year. I am talking about 12 whom I have seen in the last three months. Whether they put the kettle on is none of the hon. Gentleman's business. He is wasting time.
If the Opposition would realise that the so-called opposition to the Act is not quite so strong at the grass roots as they think, it would help. I am not saying that the 12 people I met represent a majority, but they are 12 who feel sufficiently strongly to discuss the matter with me.
Does not the leader of the Opposition, who made that corny speech at the beginning of the debate, recall that 10 to 15 years ago there was a serious deterioration in industrial relations? If not, why was the Donovan Commission set up anyway? Why did his party issue "In Place of Strife"? It was clear that there was a deterioration in industrial relations and that the matter had to be dealt with.
The decision we face today is whether we go forward as a democracy governed by Parliament or by some anarchist organisation which wishes to take over from us.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) will forgive me if, because of the shortage of time, I do

not comment on any of the points he made in his speech.
For 27 years I was General Secretary of the Chemical Workers' Union. Because of that, and because I had a vested interest, I was reluctant to take part in debates in the House on industrial questions. I thought that I would concentrate on consumer problems.
During debates on the Industrial Relations Bill I made one or two modest speeches during which I suggested to hon. Members opposite that the result of the Bill once enacted was that inevitably shop stewards would be arrested and imprisoned. I suggested that as soon as that happened hon. Members opposite would have a welter of industrial disputes on their hands and, possibly, a general strike. The Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General said that nothing in the legislation would lead to shop stewards being prosecuted and imprisoned. That is what was said time and time again. If they were honest in that observation they should do something about the present situation.
Because of the Industrial Relations Act, my union decided last year to merge with the Transport and General Workers' Union. I declare an interest, because I am a national officer of that union. We merged with that union because we did not believe that a small union could live with the Industrial Relations Act, because we thought that one unofficial industrial dispute would empty our treasuries and we could not exist.
The members of my union, who were not very revolutionary but just ordinary democrats, came to the conclusion that this legislation waslegalised tyranny, and that is the view of millions of industrial workers today. In all history, both ancient and modern, men and women with great courage have fought against legalised tyrannies and have gone to prison to change the laws. That is what industrial workers are doing today.
The Government and their supporters have no conception of what it means to a man of, say, 50 years of age when he finds his job disappearing, as though it never existed. He becomes an outlaw in our society. He cannot fit in. He resists the disappearance of his job. Is that a crime? He goes to work to earn enough


to give himself, his wife and his children a decent standard of living. If that position is put in jeopardy, is he to be blamed for resisting it? If he not allowed to resist by withdrawing his labour, and by picketing, that man is a slave. What life can there be in slavery? What wrong can there be in resisting slavery? As I say, the Tories have no conception of the resistance of workers today.
The Prime Minister said today that we must defend the rights of members of USDAW. But USDAW members are on strike. They are on strike today to protect members of the Transport and General Workers Union, who, the right hon. Gentleman said, were interfering with their right to work. This is an expression of the intrinsic loyalty of working men and women who believe that the Industrial Relations Act is a tyranny which has swept aside the fruits of 200 years of struggle for trade union rights. That is what they believe, and they are right in that belief.
You talk and write about the class war, but when you get in Government, you Tories, you do not talk it; you fight it. For once in a while, working men and women throughout this country under stand what the struggle is all about. You have to face the situation in which British industry is grinding to a halt, and you have to do something about it. You have to do something about it because our economy will be shattered otherwise. The only thing you can do is to get these men out of prison. You say that you cannot do it. You did it during the Kent miners' strike without any difficulty. I remember it well. Under the Emergency Powers Act during the war, the law put miners in prison—you put them in prison—

Mr. David Waddington: You? It was Ernie Bevin.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am being accused of a lot of things. I am just wondering where my responsibilities end.

Mr. Edwards: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I ought to know the proper form, after 17years, as a Member. At the time of the industrial dispute in Kent during the war, miners were put in prison, and everything stopped in this mining area. But the Government got them out. What is the difference between

that situation and the situation now? Parliament has power over any court. We make the laws. We are more important than any court. If the Government of the day want to save a shattering blow to our economy, from which it will take decades to recover, something must be done now. The Government must get the men out, because the country faces a mounting dispute which will gather momentum and lead ultimately to a general strike. There is no doubt about that.
I deny that the Government have a mandate for the Act. A few months ago, I went to speak at a public school in the constituency where the Member was the national chairman of the Conservative Party. I spoke to those young public school people about the Industrial Relations Act and the rôle of the trade unions. A letter had been received from the Conservative Member of Parliament. He had been asked to speak on the Industrial Relations Act, but he said in reply, "I do not know anything about it"—although he was chairman of the Conservative Party—"I should like to discuss with you unit trusts, because I know a lot about unit trusts".
I am sure that that experience is in line with the experience and knowledge of most hon. Members. The matter was never debated at the time of the General Election. If the national chairman of the Conservative Party was not prepared to discuss it with scholars in his own constituency because he knew nothing about it, and he would prefer to talk about unit trusts, what right have hon. Members opposite to say that they have a mandate from the people? They never had a mandate for this kind of legislation. It is not too late to put the Act in cold storage and save a welter of industrial disputes which would be infinitely more severe on the economy than was the General Strike of 1926.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I have had a personal friendship with the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) for many years, both in industry and in the House, and on visits abroad with parliamentary delegations, but I must say that I have never heard him talk so much rubbish as he did in the last few minutes. It is nonsense to suggest that we had no mandate to introduce the Industrial Relations Act. It


was clearly in the Conservative Party manifesto at the last election, and it was one of the main planks on which we won that election.
Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side may not like to hear it, or they may wish to bury their heads in the sand and ignore it, but the plain fact is that the rank and file of people in this country are sick to death of the machinations and shenanigans of trade unions in this country. That is why the mass of the people are behind the Government and what is being done in the present serious situation.

Mr. Paget: rose—

Mr. Cooper: I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman goes back to his fox hunting, because he is more effective there than he is here. Before they start talking about destroying the country's economy, the Opposition must understand that the number of people on strike today is less than 100,000, out of a work force of nearly 24 million. Let us get the facts straight.
It is a piece of arrogance and impudence on the part of the Opposition to raise this matter on an Adjournment Motion. The truth is that trade unionists have been encouraged and incited to defy the law. It was the last Labour Government—the hon. Member for Bilston talked of history, so let him listen to a bit of up-to-date history for a moment—who brought in the White Paper "In Place of Strife", but their paymasters the trade unions forced them to withdraw it. In our manifesto we said that we would introduce a Bill, which was largely in line with what the Labour Party itself had proposed in "In Place of Strife". But what did the Labour Party say during the passage of that Bill? It said that trade unions were not to register under the Act and neither were they to recognise the courts.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Who said that?

Mr. Cooper: The leader of the trade unions said it. It was TUC policy to dictate to its members what they should do—to defy the law, not to register and not to recognise the court. It was not until the court imposed fines upon the Transport and General Workers Union that the unions woke up to the fact

that the court existed and that it was part of the law of the land and had to be obeyed.
The Leader of the Opposition was pressed many times this afternoon and refused to answer. I pose the question again. Do the Opposition support the rule of law or do they support anarchy? That is the sole issue which faces us. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like what I say, but they will have to listen. Even if I have to stay here until 7 o'clock I will say the things I want to say. The fewer the interruptions, the more opportunity there will be for Opposition Members to speak. The responsibility for the present situation rests on the shoulders of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), Mr. Vic Feather, Scanlon and Jones. They are the men who have encouraged trade unionists to defy the law and not to register, with all the things which have happened as a result.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is not present. My constituency happens to be next to his. I have many dockers in that constituency, and last Thursday and Friday I met deputations of them. They are very unhappy at the action being taken by their so-called leaders—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Members to laugh at this, but I should like them to understand—

Mr. Clinton Davis: Tell the truth.

Mr. Cooper: I am telling the truth.

Mr. Davis: It is not true.

Mr. Cooper: You have not got a docker within 10 miles of your constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will address me, please.

Mr. Cooper: The dockers I met are not in sympathy with what is going on. They do not want to go on strike, because many of them have financial commitments.

Miss Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cooper: No. You have troubles in Northern Ireland which you cannot solve. I suggest that you go back and see to them.

Miss Devlin: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has referred to my duties in this House as if they had no further relevance than to my own constituency. Many other hon. Members do not have dockers in their constituency but are concerned with the problems of the whole area over which this Parliament is supposed to have jurisdiction. Therefore, have not I, as much as any other hon. Member, a right to speak in defence of my class in this or my own country?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady has no rights unless the hon. Gentleman gives way.

Miss Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cooper: No. We have an hour and a quarter left on a very important debate. We must have wasted the best part of half an hour—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In fact, we have exactly 25 minutes left.

Mr. Cooper: I apologise. In that case, I shall cut my remarks short.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be grateful if you will take the opportunity to correct what you said about 25 minutes remaining for debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate finishes at half-past six. I was speaking about the back-bench speeches.

Mr. Cooper: I should like hon. Members who are so incensed about the operation of the Industrial Relations Act to remember that this is just one side of the coin. The other side is that the Companies Acts impose severe obligations and duties on company directors and all those associated with a business. They provide for penalties of heavy fines and imprisonment if we do not comply with them. Why should one side of industry have all those obligations imposed upon it and yet the trade unions be free from the law?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is on a very good point. But why is it that the Government and Ministers immediately responsible for taking action against the dockers have refused, not once but on 15 separate occasions, to take action against company directors who have been breaking

the law under the Companies Acts for three and four years on end? I could spend until 6.30 this evening giving the names of the companies and the directors. I could quote the most recent, the Real Estate Fund of America. Why is it that for years the Government and the Prime Minister have refused to enforce the Companies Acts yet within hours they take action against the dockers?

Mr. Cooper: I shall understand in future not to give way to the cheating of the hon. Gentleman. I repeat that the Companies Acts, which are the other side of the coin, impose severe duties and obligations on companies. Why should the trade unions regard themselves as being above the law?

Mr. Lewis: Because the company directors are.

Mr. Cooper: Rubbish.
The principal leaders of the trade unions—Jones, Scanlon and so on—realised from the beginning that when the Act was passed they would be exposed as incompetent and unable to control their members. That was the very first thing that happened. Jack Jones immediately tried to control some of his members up in Liverpool, and they put their fingers to their noses at him. He could not do anything about it.
Why is waffling Vic Feather opposed to the Act? It is because he has no powers, because the individual trade unions will not give him the powers to control the unions. The unions cannot control their own members. That is the reason for their weakness today. The tail is wagging the dog in a big way and will continue to do so until a law is introduced by one side of the House or the other giving power to the unions to control their own members.
The trade union leaders are opposed to going into the Common Market for precisely the same reason. They know perfectly well that the Continental trade union leaders will givethem the runaround. Our present difficulties may well throw up young men of quality and ability who can take care of the trade unions and look after their members.
For all our differences in the House—and there are many—we are nevertheless one nation. We must live here, work here and have a prosperous community. It


is up to each and every one of us to try to co-operate one with the other.
Hon. Members know me. I have been in industry for many years. We do not have problems in our company, because we have what I think is a fairly decent system of labour relations. It is possible for all of us to have this relationship. What we cannot have if the country is to prosper is the constant expression of two sides. We are not two sides. Those of us who work in a company are one team—[Interruption.] Of course, there are hon. Members like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who do not want to work with anybody but with the Labour Party. If the hon. Member came and worked with me he would probably earn a damned sight more money than he does today.
This is a serious time in our history. At moments of difficulty we can always rely on the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Vic Feather and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East to say something damned silly. But this is not the moment for them to use words of that sort. They must recognise that from 1st January when we join the Common Market we shall have enormous opportunities of a character that we do not believe to be otherwise open to us. If we were foolish and did the wrong thing, we could throw all those opportunities away.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) is a buffoon. I am sure he did not realise what he was saying when he referred to the seriousness of the situation. Of course it is serious, but one would not have gathered that from listening to the debate since 3.30. Why on earth were hon. Members on the Government side standing on their seats and waving their Order Papers? Who were they cheering? Were they cheering the fact that five men were in gaol? Were they cheering the speech of the Prime Minister? [Hon. Members: "It was a good one."] Were they cheering his leadership? If they were cheering all those things, a contradictory situation exists on their side of the House.
When the hon. Member for Ilford, South referred to events in the Labour

Party he spoke about class politics and the class struggle as though we on the Labour side were the only purveyors of class hatred. But he personified the class struggle with his remarks. Does he not realise that the Opposition spend the whole of their political lives seeking a classless society? He is accusing the wrong people. We want a classless society, and that is the whole purpose of our political activity. We do not want to perpetuate the class society that the hon. Member envisaged.
The hon. Member described the trade unions as the paymasters of the Labour Party and how, by whatever methods, "In Place of Strife" as a policy document was dropped by the Labour Party. But has he forgotten that Government back benchers can be effeotive only if they are joined by Opposition hon. Members? That is the only way a Government can be defeated. It must therefore mean that the Conservatives would have voted against the legislation if he maintains that we were able to force the abandonment of "In Place of Strife"

Mr. Cooper: During the passage of the Industrial Relations Bill the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)said consistently that the Labour Government did not introduce a Bill and that it was never put up for Second Reading.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Member must understand the history of the matter and recognise that the White Paper was never converted into legislation because the then Opposition said that they would not support it, and therefore those who were supporting the Labour Government on other policies were able to persuade them not to implement "In Place of Strife".

Mr. Harold Walker: If my hon. Friend is talking about the history of these matters, he should get it right. The White Paper "In Place of Strife" was not withdrawn, but certain elements of it were removed for the reasons which he correctly gives. The Labour Government, at the counting of heads, which is the basis of political power in the House, reckoned that the then Opposition, allied with a minority on the Government side, would deprive the Government of a majority. That is a reality of political power. It is no good


hon. Members saying that the Labour Government retreated when the Conservatives were as much responsible for the situation as anyone. But a Bill was subsequently presented. It had the overwhelming support of the Labour Party and the trade union movement but, unfortunately, it fell with the General Election.

Mr. Atkinson: I move on to the issues raised by the Prime Minister and mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and others and deal with the political court and political law in this country.
Unfortunately the Press does not allow us to put our case as thoroughly as we would like and, therefore, there is not a widespread understanding of the views that many of us on the Labour side have expressed about accepting the law as it is enacted here. The Prime Minister referred to selectivity and said that it was wrong for a political party to advocate the right of people to select laws, accepting those designed for their own protection and welfare but rejecting others. He said that it was wrong for people to pick and choose laws.
Some of us on the Opposition side say that it is right to be selective. I could give many examples often used in argument. It is a commonly acepted law that one man should not kill another. But there are circumstances in which an officer in the Army may give another man a gun and give him permission to execute a fellow man. He does not seek permission from Parliament or anywhere else. The law is immediately changed because of the circumstances. Presumably the authority to kill is inherited in that situation. The law still exists, but on two bases: there is a right to kill in one set of circumstances and in other circumstances the law must be obeyed and it denies a man the right to kill.
It may be argued that if a man wears a uniform he may kill another without the permission of the State or Parliament, but immediately he takes off the uniform he is subject to civilian law, which says that he must not kill. There is this selectivity in the law as it applies to a given situation.
I would not put it past some Governments to try to outlaw the Labour Party

or to outlaw a particular newspaper, as has happened elsewhere in the world. If there were an attempt to outlaw a trade union or a political party, I hope that all my hon. Friends would reject such a law and would work to support whatever was being outlawed by the party in power. If a newspaper were outlawed and it became illegal to publish it, I hope that we should combine together to defeat that law, and I hope that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) would join me in trying to defeat a law of that kind. If hon. Members on the Government side lived in a country which had outlawed trade unions, I hope that we could join together to defeat the law in those circumstances. Thus we are selective about the law, accepting some laws and rejecting others.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Rubbish! That is anarchy.

Mr. Anthony Fell: The hon. Gentleman is arguing the case for anarchy and he knows it perfectly well. He mentioned the right to kill. Is he really saying that people in society may choose whether they have the right to kill?

Mr. Atkinson: Of course there is a right to choose. There is the right to conscientious objection. Tf a man says that he will not kill, either because he does not believe in the political objective of the killing, or for some other reason, he has the right to choose whether he will kill. It is a question of applying the law to different situations, and we have the right to argue about the selectivity of the law.
The Government are making the rules as they go along. They have set up what was rightly described by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as a puppet court and it is presided over by a puppet judge. It is an extension of the political mechanism, and that is why we reject the law emanating from that court. Its laws are political laws.
It was the Government themselves who wanted to create a different court. Why was it set up as it was? If I had time I could list 20 or 30 differences between this and other courts. The reason for those differences is that this court must accept the word of the Government, and


that is why it must be the puppet of the Government.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest in what way the law of contempt is a political law?

Mr. Atkinson: Because the dockers have expressed themselves in contempt of the political policies which emanated from the Government. What the dockers are doing is rejecting the policies pursued by the Government, who are deliberately pursuing policies which have been rejected by trade unionists. Therefore, trade unionists must reject the court.
It is true that TUC policy all along has consistently been non-co-operation, and that has led to this situation. The trade union movement as a whole rejects this instrument of political activity, this use of the courts for political ends. That is why we have said what we have said, and that is why the Government are now interfering with the processes of the court and why they are now trying to solve the problem as they are.
I understand that the Official Solicitor came out of hiding again, that he went to the court this morning and will present his case to the court at three o'clock tomorrow, and presumably events will follow from that and the shop stewards will be released from prison. Then we shall move into phase two of this struggle. It is the Government who are interfering with the court. The court is to be used by the Government in their resort to extraordinary measures to solve their own problems. But while they are using the court as an instrument of their policy, they are using the most extraordinary methods to extract themselves from their present situation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North does not represent the views of all Opposition Members, or the majority of views throughout the British Labour movement, when he says that at all times all laws must be obeyed and all courts must be obeyed. That is not the majority view throughout the trade union movement; that is not the view held by the TUC; it was not the view expressed at the special conference at Croydon; it was not the view

endorsed by the TUC at Blackpool. It was not the view taken by the Finance and General Purposes Sub-Committee on three occasions since then. The TUC policy has always been non-co-operation with this court.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Disobeying the law.

Mr. Atkinson: Non-co-operation plainly means disobeying decisions. If we are not to co-operate with a political court, how on earth can we accept its decisions? How can one appear in a court if one is pursuing a policy of non-co-operation? Consistently since the Croydon conference the TUC has said that the policy is non-co-operation with this court, that it does not want anything to do with it and that the court is designed to destroy the TUC's strength, to destroy the shop steward movement. One cannot co-operate in one's own destruction. An organisation cannot be asked to proceed on a policy of co-operation which will result in its own destruction.
The Government have said that the purpose of this law is to eliminate the militancy in trade unionism, to eliminate wildcat strikes and so on. This law has been an attack on the shop stewards movement and that is why we reject the law and the court. I believe that the great majority of our friends and party members throughout the country will take the same attitude and that they will reject the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North when he says that these men do not deserve the support of the Labour movement. I believe that the opposite is the case.
I believe that it is the job and the responsibility of all of us here to support the shop stewards in the struggle they are waging in defence of their employment. It is the responsibility of everyone on this side of the House to change the kind of society in which we live, and if we are to change the society we must dismantle the apparatus set up by the Government. It is our policy to repeal the Act, to dismantle the court and to put an end to it. If we are consistent, we must support the dockers. That, I believe, is the view throughout the country, and it is the opposite of that advanced by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: We are accustomed in the House to the Government not replying adequately to debates, but we have seldom listened to speeches as blatant as those we have heard this afternoon from the Prime Minister and some of his hon. Friends, in which they have tried to pretend that the debate is about something different. They are not entitled to label us as being people who are not in favour of respect for the law. The Prime Minister has heard the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and many of my hon. Friends on this subject, speaking in the House, in the country and through the broadcasting media over many months. The Prime Minister heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon in which he reiterated his conviction that the law, however bad it was, should be respected. The Prime Minister was interrupted several times by my right hon. Friend, by myself and by others in an attempt to put him right, but he ploughed on with a long speech in a short debate in which he completely dodged the issues in front of the House by talking about something which was not the issue we are debating.
The subject before the House is the chaotic industrial situation created by the Government's folly and pigheaded persistence in keeping the Act on the Statute Book. We were entitled to hear from the Prime Minister an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the crisis and ideas on the policies that the Government would pursue to deal with it.
The subject we are discussing is the critical situation of employment in the docks which has been getting worse for many years. Over one-third of the jobs have been lost in seven years. That is against a background of heavy general unemployment and heavy unemployment in dockland areas. We have been on the verge of a national dock strike since May. A national dock strike has twice been called and postponed by the National Dock Delegate Conference. This week the Jones-Aldington Committee has presented what might well be the beginnings of a solution to these problems. It is only the beginnings because the committee has produced an interim report and is due to go on to further studies. The interim report is bold and imaginative.

It is made by a committee representing not only employers and trade unions but having as members two working dockers, and it provides a solution upon which both sides might have agreed to call off any industrial action so that a peaceful settlement could have emerged.
At the eleventh hour this artificial crisis arises out of an argument about one cold store in the East End of London. I ask the House to reflect upon how ridiculous it is that the nation's docks should be brought to a standstill—and perhaps other industries as well—over one local argument, however serious, that should never have reached this pitch.
The remarks which I made on Friday have been quoted at length by hon. Members opposite. I wish they had quoted all my remarks, including the passages in which I criticised the Government. I stand by what I said. I believe that the shop stewards were wrong to pursue the action they did, and I believe that not only as a law-abiding citizen but as a trade unionist.
The constitutional authority here is the National Dock Delegate Conference, which called off the strike action so that its representatives should be able to talk within the framework of the Jones/Aldington Committee, and that was right. Every decision of the National Dock Delegate Conference was reported to mass meetings of dockers in the dockland areas. That is the way to proceed. I make this practical point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) may not agree. All trade unionists might learn a lesson from the recent railway men's dispute. The railway men obeyed the law, carried out the orders of the court, won their fight, got a good settlement and made the Government look ridiculous. That is how we should fight these battles. We should fight to win.
A point that is not often mentioned in these debates is the responsibility of the employers. People attack the actions of the pickets. I equally attack the foolish, irresponsible action of Midland Cold Storage in taking this case to the court. I do not know who was supposed to be helped—certainly not Midland Cold Storage, which has not benefited from what has happened since. There will always be in British industry trade unionists or employers, or both, who


behave in a way which we might think to be unreasonable, but what is wrong is that they are presented with a scenario in which the situation can escalate into a national crisis. Therefore, the main culprits are the Government and this divisive, unfair and unreasonable Act which they have put and kept on the Statute Book, despite the evidence of recent events that it is a national disaster. The events of the last few months are all events that the Government were warned about by the Opposition and by many other people when they were bringing forward the legislation.
The Prime Minister was complacent this afternoon in speaking of the relatively small number of workers who are on strike. I hope the number will remain small and that this dispute will be settled. I agree with the decision made yesterday by the TUC not to call a general strike, but if things go on as they are going the Government cannot expect their luck to hold. There is bound to be a much bigger reaction, resulting in large numbers of people on strike, and large numbers of other workers being laid off because of the strike, with consequent great hardship to the people and great loss to our economy.
The Prime Minister has given us no idea of any constructive approach to the problem. In the absence of that, I put on record my profound hope that two things will work out. First, I hope that the Official Solicitor will find a way to do what, apparently, he proposes to do and appeal to the court for a procedure which will get these men out of gaol. If this happens, as I hope it will, the Government must remember that they will have been saved by a stroke of luck to which they have contributed nothing and which they do not deserve.
The other development I hope for is that the Jones-Aldington proposals will be accepted by both sides. I emphasise "by both sides". There are militants among dock employers as well as among dock trade unionists, and many of the militant dock employers are angry about the proposals. Both sides need to discuss the proposals with great urgency and to discuss them constructively, remembering their responsibility to everyone in the community. If—and it is a big "if"—the country is saved from this crisis by these

developments, as I hope, without being over-optimistic, will be the case, at the end of the week the Government will still have to recognise that as long as the Act remains on the Statute Book crises of this sort will occur over and over again.
I take up the Prime Minister on one point. He laid great stress upon respect for the law and pretended that the Government benches were defending the law whereas the Opposition were attacking it. That is the precise opposite of the truth. The Government have put on the Statute Book an Act which millions of people regard as stupid, offensive, divisive and unfair and their opinion of the Act will lead some of those people to break the law. I do not defend their breaking the law; I am merely saying that it will happen. When it happens the overall respect of this country for the law as a whole will be lessened. The Government are the wreckers; they are the people who are bringing the law of the country into disrepute.
The Government's pride is the least important element. If I were giving advice as a friend to the Government, I would say that they would appear to be bigger men in the country if they would acknowledge their mistake. Everyone else knows that it is a mistake. They will appear as bigger men if they acknowledge their mistake by either repealing or suspending the Act. At the very least, they should introduce the two amendments to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier, so that it is no longer possible for an individual employer or any other individual to escalate a local dispute into a national crisis in the way we have seen. If the Government do not take these steps, we shall be in deeper and deeper trouble and the whole fabric of our society will as a result be irreparably damaged.

6.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): There is one thing that this debate has not made clear and it is what the Opposition are really trying to do.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: What are you going to do?

Mr. Macmillan: They have not said what they intend to do to deal with the


root cause of this problem. They seek to use these problems as part of the campaign which they are helping to conduct to make the Industrial Relations Act disruptive and divisive. In doing so they are conniving at methods which they condemned outright in Opposition and which the union leadership has condemned and denounced.
The Government are trying to help dock workers, as the Leader of the Opposition was good enough and generous enough to admit. The Government are prepared to provide finance to enable the Aldington-Jones proposals to go ahead. The total amount will depend on the number of dockers who take advantage of these special temporary arrangements. If, for example, 2,500 men with varying lengths of service took severance, at the higher rate of £4,000 maximum for those unfit and over 55 and the £2,000 minimum for the unfit the total cost would be in the neighbourhood of £7½ million.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech. I hope that he will accept that in the course of this matter I have tried to understand not only the technical, social and economic problems of dockland but also the emotions of the dockers which he and other hon. Members representing dockers have explained to me and members of my Department.
I am fully aware that where over the years the right to work has depended on solidarity and where that right is now felt to be threatened, not only by containerisation but also by other massive changes in cargo handling, this leads to genuine emotions. We were very near to a lasting solution. Why, then, did these five men have to put it at risk by using methods which they described as "Us in, You out"? Industry has done its best—union officials, working dockers and employers—in the Aldington/Jones proposals, and the Government in providing finance.
I am happy to be able to tell the House that the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industries has accepted these proposals, both trade union and employer sides. The employers are now to consider details of the severance proposals put to a further meeting of the National Joint Council. So the

problems of the dockers are genuinely being dealt with in the first stage of what could be a massive two-stage operation to bring the problems of dockland much nearer a total solution.
We have a good chance of eliminating the temporary unattached register, of dealing with containerisation problems, of meeting the just arguments of dock workers to provide a long-term solution. This should go ahead, and I hope that members of the Opposition and the unions and their leadership will do all that they can to persuade these five men to accept the judgment of the court and to accept that the picketing and blacking is now no longer necessary nor helpful in the present situation. The facts are clear. They are not as the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition said. The problem does not derive from this Government failing to face the real problems of industrial relations, from which he ran away when in Government and from which he indicated this afternoon he would run away again.
Nor is it right to say that we on this side should abandon our responsibilities as he suggested, or take power to override the law. These five men were not imprisoned by the Industrial Relations Act. They had already rejected the constitutional process of their union, the joint negotiating machinery of their industry and the court's order to desist in an unfair industrial practice of national blacking. In rejecting this order they made it plain that they at least prefer the use of force to negotiation and discussion, suggested in the Aldington/Jones Report. It is their total rejection of all of this which has created the problem. That is what is causing the difficulties now.
Nor is it true, as was suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this is a union-bashing Act. I have the greatest respect for the sincerity of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) but this is not a bad law—

Mr. McNamara: It is wicked.

Mr. Macmillan: It is an Act which once it achieves the co-operation of the unions, which it will achieve, will bring greater justice and order to the industrial relations scene. It is not the Industrial Relations Act which is at fault; it is the


attitude which is taken by its opponents in persuading people that this is not a High Court. It is hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are at fault, who in their political campaign have sown a distrust of the court. The Government have made it plain that they seek no confrontation with the unions. They have made it abundantly clear that they are willing to consider alterations to the Act as they are shown to be necessary. But we are not willing to give in to the type of pressure now being put upon us.
This is an Act of Parliament passed by an elected Parliament, setting up a division of the High Court. Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, people cannot pick and choose which laws they shall obey. There is no selective law; there is no such thing as a selective law in this country.

Mr. William Molloy: This is class law.

Mr. Macmillan: There are selective duties and selective rights under the law,

and it is on this law that our liberties and our whole position is founded.

Nor is it true that it can be claimed that industrial relations alone should be exempt from the provisions of the law, that alone of all courts industrial relations court should, if held in contempt, be unable to use any methods to deal with that contempt. Not one piece of industrial relations legislation has ever said this. The law of 1906 and 1965 and even the provisions of the published but unenacted Bill of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) contained ultimately the sort of sanctions contained in the Industrial Relations Act.

I ask the House to support conciliation in industrial relations, to support the constitutional authority of the trade unions, to support the rational solution of genuine problems and the interests of millions of trade unionists, and to support the rule of law.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn: —

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 299.

Division No. 315.]
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Albu, Austen
Coleman, Donald
Fletcher Ted (Darlington)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Concannon, J. D.
Foley, Maurice


Allen, Scholefield
Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ford, Ben


Ashley, Jack
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Atkinson, Norman
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Freeson, Reginald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Galpern, Sir Myer


Barnes, Michael
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Garrett, W. E.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Baxter, William
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Golding, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Gourlay, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Deakins, Eric
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Booth, Albert
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dell, Rt Hn. Edmund
Hamling, William


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bradley, Tom
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Hardy, Peter


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hattersley, Roy


Buchan, Norman
Driberg, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Heffer, Eric S.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunnett, Jack
Hilton, W. S.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Eadie Alex
Horam, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Huckfield, Leslie


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
English, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Evans, Fred
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ewing, Harry
Hunter, Adam


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur(Edge Hill)




Janner, Greville




Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Meacher, Michael
Sandelson, Neville


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mendelson, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


John, Brynmor
Mikardo, Ian
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Millan, Bruce
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Milne, Edward
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Sillars, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Judd, Frank
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Gerald
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Kelley, Richard
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stallard, A. W.


Kinnock, Neil
Murray, Ronald King
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lambie, David
Oakes, Gordon
Stoddart David (Swindon)


Lamond, James
Ogden, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Latham, Arthur
O'Halloran, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lawson, George
O'Malley, Brian
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Leadbitter, Ted
Oram, Bert
Taverne, Dick


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Leonard, Dick
Orme, Stanley
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oswald, Thomas
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tinn, James


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Padley, Walter
Tomney, Frank


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Paget, R. T.
Torney, Tom


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Lomas, Kenneth
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Loughlin, Charles
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wainwright, Edwin


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pendry, Tom
Wallace, George


McBride, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Watkins, David


McCartney, Hugh
Perry, Ernest G.
Weitzman, David


McElhone, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McGuire, Michael
Prescott, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mackie, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


Mackintosh, John P.
Probert, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Maclennan, Robert
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E )
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Marks, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


Marquand, David
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)



Marsden, F.
Rodgers. William (Stockton-on-Tees)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Roper, John
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. James Hamilton.


Mayhew, Christopher
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dean, Paul


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bryan, Paul
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Astor, John
Buck, Antony
Dixon, Piers


Atkins, Humphrey
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, G. B.


Balniel, Lord
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
du Cann, Rt. Hn Edward


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Carlisle, Mark
Dykes, Hugh


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Eden, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cary, Sir Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bell, Ronald
Chapman, Sydney
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emery, Peter


Benyon, W.
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fell, Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Cockeram, Eric
Fenner Mrs. Peggy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cooke, Robert
Fidler, Michael


Body, Richard
Coombs, Derek
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Boscawen, Robert
Cooper, A. E.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cordle, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Cormack, Patrick
Fookes Miss Janel


Braine, Bernard
Costain, A. P.
Fortescue, Tim


Bray, Ronald
Critchley, Julian
Foster, Sir John


Brewis, John
Crouch, David
Fowler, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dalkeith, Earl of
Fox, Marcus




Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)







Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Galbraith, Hn. T. G
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Loveridge, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Luce, R. N.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Goodhew, Victor
MacArthur, Ian
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gorst, John
McCrindle, R. A.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gower, Raymond
McLaren, Martin
Rost, Peter


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Royle, Anthony


Gray, Hamish
McMaster, Stanley
Russell, Sir Ronald


Green, Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Scott, Nicholas


Gummer, Selwyn
Maddan, Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gurden, Harold
Madel, David
Sharples, Sir Richard


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Neil
Simeons, Charles


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol
Sinclair, Sir George


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maude, Angus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Soref, Harold


Hasethurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Spence, John


Havers, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sproat, Iain


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire. W)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heath, Ht. Hn. Edward
Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Heseltine, Michael
Moate, Roger
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Higgins, Terence L.
Molyneaux, James
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hiley, Joseph
Money, Ernle
Sutcliffe, John


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tapsell, Peter


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Holt, Miss Mary
More, Jasper
Tebbit, Norman


Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Temple, John M.


Hornby, Richard
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Morrison, Charles
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Mudd, David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Murton, Oscar
Tilney, John


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Trew, Peter


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Normanton, Tom
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


James, David
Nott, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Jennings. J. C. (Burton)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jessel, Toby
Orr, Stanley, L. P. S.
Waddington, David


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Osborn, John
Walder, David (Ciltheroe)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil
Walters, Dennis


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Kimball, Marcus
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
White, Roger (Gravesend)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wiggin, Jerry


Kinsey, J. R.
Pounder, Rafton
Wilkinson, John


Kirk, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Winterton, Nicholas


Kitson, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Knox, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


Lambton, Lord
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Worsley, Marcus


Lamont, Norman
Raison, Timothy
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Lane, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Younger, Hn. George


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Redmond, Robert



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and



Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Walter Clegg.

Question accordingly negatived.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING FINANCE BILL (SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATION OF TIME)

6.40 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move,
That the Order [13th March] be supplemented as follows: —
1. The Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, subject to paragraph 2 below, at Eleven o'clock today.
2.—(1) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings for one hour after Ten o'clock; but any period during which they may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this sub-paragraph.
(2) If any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to today, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Consideration of the Lords Amendments may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock, and the bringing to the conclusion of the latter proceedings shall be postponed for a period after Eleven o'clock equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.
3. In accordance with the Order [13th March], paragraph 6 of that Order (which relates to dilatory Motions) and paragraph 9 of that Order (which relates to private business) shall have effect in relation to the Proceedings mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Order as if today were an allotted day within the meaning of that Order.
4.—(1) If at the expiration of the period for which the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments may continue by virtue of paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Order, those Proceedings have not been completed, then for the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such (if any) of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall then forthwith—
(i) put the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments except those designated by Mr. Speaker or, if none of the remaining Lords Amendments has been so designated, in all the remaining Lords Amendments, and

(ii) if any of the remaining Lords Amendments have been so designated, put separately, with respect to each of those Amendments so designated, the Question on any Motion, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
5. In paragraph 11 of the Order [13th March] (which relates to Supplemental Orders) any reference to that Order shall be construed as including a reference to this Order.
The Bill received the most thorough consideration during its passage through this House, both in Committee and on Report. A record number of hours of debate were devoted to it. The present stage—consideration of Lords Amendments—is designed—indeed it is limited to it—to enabling the House to look at the Amendments made in another place, where altogether 169 Amendments were made. Some 60 of them are essentially drafting. The others deal with 30 points of substance, but the majority of these substantive Amendments make changes along the lines which the Opposition are understood to favour and which all of us would wish to endorse. I shall briefly enumerate them in order to explain why we are moving this Motion.
The Amendments seek in a number of ways to improve the Bill. They improve and extend the subsidy arrangement. In particular, they abolish the previous limitation on rising costs subsidy for 1972–73 and 1973–74 by removing the provision whereby no subsidy was payable towards the first£6 per dwelling, the threshold of any increase in reckonable expenditure for those two years. They retain the existing hostel grants which are payable to housing associations and to local authorities for existing hostels. This change has been warmly welcomed by associations which run existing hostel schemes and by the local authority associations.
The Amendments further allow loan charges from internal borrowing by housing associations to count as expenditure for subsidy purposes. The Amendments also make more generous the model scheme for rent rebates and allowances. They increase the rebate or allowance for the chronically sick and disabled. The needs allowance of a chronically sick or disabled person goes up by £1·25 a week, and £2 a week for a couple. Where there


are young adults in the tenant's household the rebate or allowance is also increased by up to 50p a week for each person aged 18 to 20, other than the tenant or his spouse.
The Amendments improve arrangements for private tenants. They provide for audited statements of service charges. They improve the form of rent agreements and empower the court to take account of the tenant's age and health where the landlord proposes improvement works against the tenant's wishes. They make it possible also to discover the identity of the landlord for harassment proceedings. The new provisions for audited statements of service charges deserve special mention. The landlord's duty to provide on request an audited statement is now set out clearly in the Statute. This new provision, moreover, has teeth in it; failure to comply with it will be punishable by a fine of up to £200, and it applies to the whole of the private rented sector, including protected tenancies. These provisions have, I understand, been widely welcomed.
As announced by my noble Friend Lord Drumalbyn in another place, the Government have also put in hand a deeper study of the question of giving tenants the right to challenge the amount of service charges imposed by their landlords. Depending on the outcome of the study, the aim is to prepare and bring forward considered legislative proposals to provide such a right. The relevant Amendment fulfils an assurance I gave on Report in this House and will, I hope, give satisfaction to some of my hon. Friends, particularly those representing the London boroughs who pressed these issues in speeches and, indeed, on one occasion in the Division Lobby.
The Lords Amendments also improve the provisions for determining fair rents for council dwellings. They require authorities to inform each tenant in writing of the fair rent provisionally assessed for his dwelling by the council and of the fair rent determined for his dwelling by the rent scrutiny board. They remove the board's power to enter and inspect dwellings—a point often pressed upon us. They require authorities to publish the reports of a rent scrutiny board which will enable tenants to make representations to the authority if the

report disagrees with the authority's provisional assessment.
I do not think there will be much disagreement with these Amendments. At the same time, we can hardly expect that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will wish to devote much time to congratulating us upon them. That is why we have concluded that, although the number of Amendments is substantial, a day's debate provides ample time for their discussion. I accept, of course, that a small number of Amendments are genuinely controversial, but since the Opposition have made it crystal clear that they want to prevent the Bill from becoming law and that if they cannot prevent its passage they wish to delay and obstruct it by every means in their power, we think it necessary to protect the Government's legislative programme by a timetable Motion.
At the same time we have no wish to be unreasonable and have gladly accepted proposals by the Opposition as to how, without prejudice, of course, to the prerogatives of the Chair or the rights of private Members, the time available could best be used. The House will, I think, agree that this is a reasonable approach and that in the circumstances the Motion allows adequate time for this important but necessarily limited and, I hope, final stage of a very important Bill. On this basis, I commend the Motion to the House.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: The last time the House discussed a guillotine on Lords Amendments to a Bill was almost exactly a year ago today, on the Industrial Relations Bill. We have now just finished an emergency debate, lasting three hours, on the disastrous consequence of that Measure for the economy, for civil peace and for the respect or disrespect in which the law is held. I hope that in a year's time we shall not be having a similar three-hour emergency debate on the consequences of this Bill. One would have hoped that we could have made that less likely to occur by not guillotining the remaining stages and by allowing the House at this last stage a full and ample debate on the provisions of the Bill.
We all know that debates on timetable Motions can often assume a mere ritual


character, with quotations and counter-quotations and precedents being pressed by both sides. I do not propose to indulge at length in that exercise. Nevertheless, the Minister treated the Motion extremely lightly. There are, after all, few precedents for timetabling Lords Amendments. Indeed, until tonight there have been only three such occasions in parliamentary history, all of them under Conservative Governments—the Transport Act, 1953, the London Government Act, 1963, and the Industrial Relations Act, 1971. Now the Government propose to do it twice in one week—today on the Housing Finance Bill and tomorrow on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. This is despite the fact that on the Housing Finance Bill we have, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, 169 Lords Amendments to consider, two-thirds of them of some substance and half of them emanating from the Government, and in all the product of 13 days of intensive and informed debate in another place.
To insist that we deal with this huge number of Amendments between now and 2 a.m. shows a complete contempt for the proceedings of the House and a cold indifference to what the consequences of the Bill will be. We cannot adequately discuss even one-tenth of these Amendments. The Minister knows it; back-bench Members opposite know it, and the Opposition know it. The whole thing will be the usual farce of guillotined discussion.
I want briefly to turn to three wider and more fundamental reasons why I believe that this Motion, at this stage, is wholly wrong. The first concerns the development of inflation since we last discussed the Bill. The fact of inflation is not new. For the last two years we have had the fastest rate of inflation that Britain has known in peace time; indeed, it is a rate threatening to approach that of some South American republics. What is new is the abrupt, although very belated, recognition by the Government that they must have a more positive and constructive anti-inflationary policy than merely systematic eyeball-to-eyeball confrontations with selected groups of public service workers.
So we see the pressure upon the CBI to reaffirm its 5 per cent. self-denying ordinance. We saw, for the first time, a

tripartite meeting under the umbrella of the NEDC, with the Prime Minister hi the chair, until the Government's bungling of industrial relations caused the talks to be suspended. We have had the Prime Minister's ringing statement that "the fight against rising prices must be one with no holds barred". We could all subscribe to that, but the Prime Minister does not seem to realise that, in practice, every hold is barred to him, because he is waging this battle with both hands tied behind his back.
I should be out of order if I were to attempt to talk about VAT, the effect of devaluation, the effect of rising social service charges, school meals, and the rest. But how can the Prime Minister and the Government conceivably hope to hold price increases down to 5 per cent. and limit wage claims by so doing when, on 1st September, notifications of rent increases are due to be sent out and when, on 1st October, the rents of millions of tenants will rise by anything up to £1?
The situation is ludicrous. The Bill is not consistent with an anti-inflationary policy, and the Government must choose one or the other. The fact that they are guillotining the remaining proceedings on this Bill means that they have made the wrong choice.
The Government may say "We are mitigating the inflationary effects of the Bill is a result of our prospective directions under Clause 62(4)."But we cannot yet measure the full consequences of Clause 62(4)—I do not doubt that we shall discuss it more fully when we reach the Lords Amendments themselves—but we can say with absolute certainty that the letters that have been written under Clause 62(4) have caused total confusion in the local government world about the effect of the Bill, and that constitutes an overwhelming second argument why the remaining stages of the Bill should not be guillotined tonight.
Initially the Bill laid down a rigid national framework for fixing rents—a mandatory £26 increase in the first year; a mandatory £26 increase in the second year; and a further mandatory increase in the third year. Then we had the long fascinating history of the Newcastle Amendment, the Minister's decisions on Birmingham, Brent, Hammersmith and the like, and then, finally, the Prime Minister declaring at Question Time last


Thursday, to the general consternation of hon. Members, that he could not tell us by how much rents would rise under the Bill compared with the CBI figure of 5 per cent. because rents would be fixed locally.
The Prime Minister is obviously unaware of the contents of the Bill. What he said was the reverse of the truth; but it at least demonstrated the total uncertainty and confusion that exists in connection with rents. A glance at any local government journal would equally confirm that local authorities have no idea what the Bill means. It is a wholly different animal from the Bill that we spent so many happy weeks discussing in Standing Committee E, but what sort of animal it is no one in local government knows.
I spoke yesterday to one of the best-known and most respected borough treasurers, whose name is a by-word for expertise in housing finance. He said "Never in my life have I seen such a shambles in local government. Not a single borough treasurer knows where he stands under the Bill. The whole thing is a total mess." The best answer would be to withdraw the Bill but if the Government are adamant against that, let us have an unguillotined and thorough debate, in order to clear our minds and the minds of those in local government as to what this amended Bill means and intends.
I want to put forward one final argument because like the Minister, I wish to be brief. I believe that it is utterly wrong to curtail debate on an issue that so gravely affects relationships between central Government and local government, and which threatens—like the Industrial Relations Act—to bring the law into disrepute. I suppose that since the Bill was introduced nobody has doubted the strength of feeling in the local government world against it. If anybody did, he would have been disabused by the resolution passed only a few days ago by the AMC, asking the Government for the withdrawal of the Bill, or by the letter sent to the Prime Minister by Sir Ron Iremonger, writing on behalf of 90 Labour-controlled local authorities, saying that
implementation of the Bill could lead to the total breakdown of local government

and asking the Prime Minister to receive a deputation consisting solely of elected members of housing authorities.
The Government must realise how repugnant to local government is not merely the policy expounded in the Bill but even more the central Government diktat to transfer powers which, historically, have rested with elected local government, away from local government and into the hands of Whitehall, overriding by Act of Parliament the wishes and pledges of elected local councillors, and the blow to local democracy and freedom which this entails.
As members of the Standing Committee know, I have made my position clear again and again on the issue of principle. I do not and cannot, as a parliamentarian and a Social Democrat, encourage or condone defiance of the law. I believe that in practice the majority of councils will implement the law. Nevertheless, some councils—and they include many moderate and normally law-abiding men and women—are outraged to the point where they say "Let the Tory Government do its own damned dirty work. We shall not positively break the law, but if they wish to have rent increases let them appoint a housing commissioner and do the dirty work themselves."
Do the Government really want, at this moment, another confrontation, this time with the world of democratically elected local government? Surely now is the time for the contrary policy—a little pacification and a binding up of the wounds that have been opened up in the last two years; less emphasis on conflict and more on consent.
I say with some regret, because I have no pleasure in the consequences of governmental action, that in my view this country has never been more divided and resentful, never more marked by class hostility, since the 1930s. Surely the Government have learned something from their experience over the Industrial Relations Act and the debate that we have just had. The best thing would be to withdraw the Bill, with its threat of further inflation and the possibility of further civil strife, but if the Government will not do that, let them at least not fling at us, at this time, the contemptuous insult of guillotining the Bill's remaining stages.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote solidly and at once against this disgraceful Motion.

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 272.

Division No. 316.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Farr, John
Lambton, Lord


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fell, Anthony
Lamont, Norman


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lane, David


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fidler, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Astor, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Atkins, Humphrey
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Le Merchant, Spencer


Awdry, Daniel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fortescue, Tim
Longden, Gilbert


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Foster, Sir John
Loveridge, John


Batsford, Brian
Fowler, Norman
Luce, R. N.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
MacArthur, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fry, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McLaren, Martin


Benyon, W.
Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McMaster, Stanley


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Blaker, Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David


Boscawen, Robert
Gorst, John
Maginnis, John E.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marten, Neil


Braine, Bernard
Green, Alan
Mather, Carol


Bray, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman


Buck, Antony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Moate, Roger


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Haselhurst, Alan
Money, Ernle


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Havers, Michael
Monro, Hector


Cary, Sir Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney
More, Jasper


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Churchill, W. S.
Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mudd, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Murton, Oscar


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey


Cockeram, Eric
Holt, Miss Mary
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cooke, Robert
Hordern, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Coombs, Derek
Hornby, Richard
Normanton, Tom


Cooper, A. E.
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Nott, John


Cordle, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Onslow, Cranley


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John
Osborn, John


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Critchley, Julian
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Crouch, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Crowder, F. P.
James, David
Parkinson, Cecil


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peel, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Percival, Ian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pounder, Rafton


Dixon, Piers
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Kinsey, J. R.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirk, Peter
Redmond, Robert


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'ctle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Emery, Peter

Rees-Davies, W. R.




Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Spence, John
Waddington, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Sproat, Iain
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stainton, Keith
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walters, Dennis


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Ward, Dame Irene


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Sutcliffe, John
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Temple, John M
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sharples, Sir Richard
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tilney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Trafford Dr. Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Simeons, Charles
Trew, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Sinclair, Sir George
Tugendhat, Christopher
Younger, Hn. George


Skeet, T. H. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin



Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Soref, Harold
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Speed, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Hamish Gray.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Hunter, Adam


Allen, Scholefield
Doig, Peter
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville


Ashley, Jack
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Atkinson, Norman
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Barnes, Michael
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Fred
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ewing, Harry
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Booth, Albert
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Judd, Frank


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kaufman, Gerald


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kelley, Richard


Bradley, Tom
Foley, Maurice
Kinnock, Neil


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Foot, Michael
Lambie, David


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Ford, Ben
Lamond, James


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Latham, Arthur


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lawson, George


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, W. E.
Leonard, Dick


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lomas, Kenneth


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Loughlin, Charles


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McBride, Neil


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McCartney, Hugh


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamling, William
McElhone, Frank


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McGuire, Michael


Crawshaw, Richard
Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, J. Kevin


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davidson, Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Horam, John
Marquand, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsden, F.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Christopher


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey









Meacher, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Strang, Gavin


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Prescott, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mendelson, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley


Mikardo, Ian
Price, William (Rugby)
Taverne, Dick


Millan, Bruce
Probert, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Milne, Edward
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Richard, Ivor
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Molloy, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tomney, Frank


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Tuck, Raphael


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Urwin, T W.


Moyle, Roland
Roper, John
Varley, Eric G.


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rose, Paul B
Wainwright, Edwin


Murray, Ronald King
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walden Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Oakes, Gordon
Rowlands, Ted
Walker Harold (Doncaster)


Ogden, Eric
Sandeleon, Neville
Wallace, George


O'Halloran, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Watkins, David


O'Malley, Brian
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Weitzman, David


Oram, Bert
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tte-u-Tyne)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitehead, Phillip


Oswald, Thomas
Sillars, James
Whitlock, William


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Padley, Walter
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Paget, R. T.
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Palmer, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pardoe, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stallard, A. W.
Woof, Robert


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Steel, David



Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Pendry, Tom
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, Rt Hn. John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Order [13th March] be supplemented as follows: —
1. The Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, subject to paragraph 2 below, at Eleven o'clock to-day.
2.—(1) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to those Proceedings for one hour after Ten o'clock; but any period during which they may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this sub-paragraph.
(2) If any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to to-day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Consideration of the Lords Amendments may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock, and the bringing to the conclusion of the latter proceedings shall be postponed for a period after Eleven o'clock equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.
3. In accordance with the Order [13th March], paragraph 6 of that Order (which relates to dilatory Motions) and paragraph 9 of that Order (which relates to private business) shall have effect in relation to the Proceedings mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Order as if to-day were an allotted day within the meaning of that Order.
4.—(1) If at the expiration of the period for which the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments may continue by

virtue of paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Order, those Proceedings have not been completed, then for the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such (if any) of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall then forthwith—
(i) put the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments except those designated by Mr. Speaker or, if none of the remaining Lords Amendments has been so designated, in all the remaining Lords Amendments, and
(ii) if any of the remaining Lords Amendments have been so designated, put separately, with respect to each of those Amendments so designated, the Question on any Motion, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
5. In paragraph 11 of the Order [13th March] (which relates to Supplemental Orders) any reference to that Order shall be construed as including a reference to this Order.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING FINANCE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

INTRODUCTION OF PART I

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 2, line 5, leave out "at the end of" and insert "in".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Before calling the Minister for Housing and Construction to move the first Motion, I suggest that the first 26 Lords Amendments be discussed together. Some of them involve Privilege.

7.10 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I understand that it is convenient to the Opposition that we discuss the first 26 Amendments together and that they do not intend to debate any of them. Therefore, in view of the shortage of time, I make no detailed explanation of them, though of course I am ready to answer any matters which may arise from them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [ Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 34

SUPPLEMENTAL

Lords Amendment No. 27: In page 39, line 26, at end insert:
(6) This Part of this Act shall come into force at the expiration of a period of one month beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, I understand that it will be

convenient to discuss Lords Amendments No. 31, No. 39 and No. 102.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you in a position to tell us how many Amendments there are involving Privilege? That surely will affect our voting at 2 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is none in this group.

Mr. Eyre: I understand that the Opposition wish to have a wide-ranging debate in respect of this group of Amendments. I deal with them with near formality in order that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction may reply fully to the debate.
The Amendments have the effect that, with the exception of Parts III and IV and a minor provision in Schedule 8, the Bill will come into force two weeks instead of one month from Royal Assent.
Part III of the Bill willcome into force one month after Royal Assent, and so also will Clauses 37 and 47 in Part IV, dealing with local authority applications and succession rights. Clause 41, dealing with the cancellation of registrations, will come into force on 1st January, 1973, at the same time as the rent agreement provisions in Clauses 42 to 45.

Mr. Dick Leonard: Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten us as to the bloomer that his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction must have committed to bring the non-playing captain on to the field at this stage?

Mr. Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with this Lords Amendment, we shall be able to move on to a useful debate rather than waste time.
The Bill requires certain housing authorities to increase the rents of their housing revenue account dwellings in the first rental period beginning on or after 1st October, 1972. It requires all housing authorities to introduce a rebate scheme not later than 1st October, 1972. The period between Royal Assent and coming into force is to be reduced to give the authorities concerned more time to make the necessary preparations to enable them to comply with the duties imposed by the Bill. In particular, most


authorities are already required by law to give tenants on weekly or fortnightly tenancies four weeks' notice of any rent increase.
The one-month's gap between Royal Assent and the coming into force is being retained for Parts III and IV of the Bill. In so far as these Parts relate to the law governing the position between private landlords and private tenants, it is right that the full month should be allowed.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Crosland: The Under-Secretary of State was rather sharp with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard). However, I, too, want to welcome the Secretary of State to our debates and thank him for taking time off from giving interviews to The Guardian, writing to his friend Mr. Hyams, and other critical activities like that, to come here to attend to the nuts and bolts of housing policy.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I so missed the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) throughout our debates on the Local Government Bill that I wanted to see him.

Mr. Crosland: Unlike the Secretary of State, I attended the Committee stage of one out of two of the Bills. I was prevented from attending two out of two only by my physical incapacity to be in two Committee Rooms at the same time.
As the Under-Secretary of State has said, Lords Amendments No. 27and No. 31 make no difference to the Bill. However, Amendment No. 102 is a crucial one which was introduced at a very late stage in another place, taking both Labour and Liberal Oppositions completely by surprise. It brings forward the date on which the central provisions of the Bill applying to the public sector come into force from a month after the Royal Assent to a fortnight after it. So far from giving authorities more time, it brings further pressure to bear on them to comply with the rigid time table laid down in the Bill. I say flatly that this time table is quite impossible and will lead to complete chaos. This Amendment, seeking to tighten the screw still further, is wholly unacceptable.
We do not know when the Royal Assent is to be. It could be any time from tomorrow onwards. Let us assume that it is tomorrow. The Bill will come into force a fortnight later, on 9th August. During that fortnight, the Bill must be printed with all 169 Lords Amendments and any others which may be made tonight. The Bill must be distributed to local authorities, unless the Government's industrial relations policy has caused even more strikes in the meantime. The Bill must be considered carefully by officers and elected representatives in authorities.
The Bill comes fully into force, assuming the Royal Assent tomorrow, on 9th August. By 1st September the basic decisions must be made—whether a Section 62(4) application has to be made, though that may have been decided already, what the rent increase is to be on 1st October, and whether the 10 per cent. margin on rent rebates is to be exploited; the rent rise notifications must be printed and dispatched, the rebate forms must be printed and dispatched, and the explanatory leaflets must be printed and dispatched—all, in effect, between 9th August, by which time the Bill will scarcely have been received in local authority offices, and 1st September.
The fact is that it cannot be done and will not be done. The Minister must accept the fact. It will not be done as neither councils nor officers will have time to digest and comprehend the Bill before they take these final decisions.
Lord Drumalbyn, in the House of Lords on 12th July, said that this argument was not important. Discussing this precise point about the timetable, he said:
what would be a reasonable time—admittedly a minimum reasonable time—for the consideration by the local authorities, bearing in mind the very close way in which, of course, they had been following the Bill and the legislation.
Later the noble Lord repeated that the Bill
has been very closely followed….Some"—
authorities—
are very familiar with it: others perhaps not so much so.
I should say they are not. I shall return to this point.
So I do not think this is an impossible task."—[Official Report, House of Lords. 12th July. 1972: c. 264–5.]


I wholly disagree. One cannot closely follow, let alone act on, a Bill which is being continuously amended as this has been, starting with the famous Newcastle Amendment in February and concluding now with no fewer than 169 Amendments coming from the House of Lords. Authorities have not even now got the Bill in its final form. Even hon. Members, if they go to the Vote Office and ask for a copy of the Bill, are liable to be offered one of two versions, and not only a single one. It is a waste of time for local authorities to study the Bill, or any Bill, which is not in its final form. To act on a Bill not in its final form and to take decisions on it is foolish in the extreme, to put it mildly.
One has only to consider the sad cases of those authorities which decided, anticipating the Bill, on a 50p increase in April before digesting the implications of Clause 62(4). So it is wrong that authorities should be asked to rely on an unamended, uncompleted Bill.
Many, perhaps most, authorities wisely have not done so, and for another reason: that every local authority association, even looking back to the days, a few months ago, when the AMC was Tory-controlled, has persistently hoped and argued for major amendment of the Bill.
As late as 23rd June, the AMC wrote to hon. Members generally saying:
As you know, the Association has always maintained that in this Bill the Government are attempting to do too much too quickly. Or, more correctly, they are asking too much of local authorities and particularly their staff. I need not tell you, of course, that it is not only a question of the Housing Finance Bill. Local government accepts and is prepared for the implementation of major reforms at different periods in its history. But to impose upon staffs a major reform in housing at the same time as major reforms in the organisation of local government itself, health services and the water and sewage services, is to place upon local authority staff unreasonable burdens and stress.
If Lord Drumalbyn doubts all this and thinks that all local authorities are fully prepared, having followed the Bill through all its stages, he should get out of London and go round the country. He has only to talk to councillors and officers, particularly of smaller authorities, to find that they are still in a state of confusion about the Bill. He has only to read the article by Muriel Bowen in last

week's Sunday Times, the Local Government Chronicle or the Local Government Review. I will not read them out. I can pick out hundreds of articles in the local government Press One, from the Local Government Chronicle, talks about the unreasonable burden this timetable imposes on local authorities. In any case, even if these authorities had been following the Committee stage of the Bill day by day—God help them if they had to do so—and had studied it as closely as Lord Drumalbyn thinks, it would still be hopeless to choose August as the month in which these crucial decisions have to be taken. After all, very few councils meet between 9th August and 1st September. A large proportion of local authority staffs are on annual leave during this period. Incidentally, as I have already pointed out, these are the same staff as are trying to follow the intricacies of the Local Government Bill and prepare for a smooth local government reorganisation. Do the Government seriously intend to disrupt and dislocate the whole of the summer leave programme of both officers and councillors throughout the country? Apart from the impossibility of the time involved, this surely shows a typical lack of consideration and courtesy.
However, even if none of these matters I have mentioned was of any reality or relevance, there would still be complete confusion over Clause 62(4). I said in the debate on the timetable Motion that not a single borough treasurer in England or Wales knows where on earth he is in consequence of Clause 62(4).
I will not go over the history of Clause 62(4). We had the Newcastle Amendment starting at 10 per cent. Within a few hours that was amended to make it 2 per cent. We then had the Birmingham application and the rather Delphic utterances of the Minister for Housing and Construction on Third Reading. Things were confused enough already by then, but now they are even more chaotic.
I will summarise the position for the convenience of hon. Members. I understand that 21 inquiries under Clause 62(4) have been made public. I am told that in total 50 inquiries have been made. We have had 11 replies to such diverse places as Birmingham, Newcastle, Hammersmith, Seaham, Seaton Valley, Fulwood,


Islington, Bromley, Brent, Huddersfield and Dudley; but those replies, so far as I have been able to read them, make confusion worse confounded. The replies are extraordinarily vague about the criteria which the Minister has adopted in making his decisions. There is a lot of vague discussion about the relationship between gross rateable values and public and private rents, what it is, and what it should be.
The letter addressed to the director of housing in Birmingham was ambivalent on the significance to be attached to the level of wages. However, I was glad—I underline this—that Lord Sandford in the House of Lords made it clear that the level of wages in the locality was a relevant factor within the terms of the Bill.
Apart from the criteria, the amounts awarded appear utterly arbitrary. I will give some examples.
First, Birmingham. Why did the Minister turn down Sir Francis Griffin's carefully argued case for 35p and attempt to impose a larger increase of 65p at a time when Birmingham's housing revenue account surplus is running at £3½ million? I cannot believe the Minister would wish to concede less to a Labour council than he would to a Tory council. Assuming that not to be the reason, it would be agreeable to know what the reason was.
Next, Newcastle. The council's proposal for 35p was accepted, even though it was lower than the figure for Newcastle proposed by the rent officers there who paid close attention 10 the private rented sector. But for Newcastle 35p bears no relation, from what I can discover, to the figure for Newcastle quoted by the Minister in Committee on 9th February. Again, I am certain that the only consideration which was never in the Minister's mind was that Newcastle is now the only major Tory-controlled city in England, and marginally controlled at that.
Hammersmith is another curious case. Hammersmith was awarded, if I may use that term, an increase of 75p, but a little later Brent was given an increase of 55p. I have discovered that the existing rent figures in Hammersmith and Brent are almost equal. It is therefore difficult to see why one should get 75p and the other 55p. I gather that since Brent has been

awarded 55p Hammersmith has decided to re-apply under Clause 62(4) saying that the 75p awarded to it is much too high.
Huddesrfield is a curious case. After great correspondence and, I imagine, great study, the Minister wrote back saying that Huddersfield need not have £1; it could have 98p. It is not clear to me what the object of the exercise is in chopping 2p off. At any rate there are many arbitrary decisions which must greatly have puzzled the recipients of these letters who know their own local conditions.

7.30 p.m.

The state of mind of those who have not yet submitted an application—and there are many of these councils, among them my own Borough of Grimsby, must be one of total confusion. There must be many additional councils intending to apply if I am to judge from the figure quoted by the Secretary of State in a speech on 9th July. The right hon. Gentleman said that half a million tenants would have smaller increases than £1 because their rents were
so close to fair rents already that their councils will be given a directive to increase their rent by less than the statutory amount.
There are 500,000 tenants, even on the Secretary of State's definition, but the figures for council tenants of the authorities which have received an indication add up to very much less than that 500,000, so I imagine that there is a good deal left in the pipeline.

Another difficulty is that local authorities must have a considerable problem in discovering the text of the letters. The first three, Birmingham, Newcastle and Hammersmith, were published. None of the others has been widely publicised, and the only way in which local authorities can gather what is going on in the Minister's mind is from a brief summary in the current Local Government Journal by Mr. Crispin Derby. There is almost total uncertainty about the Bill.

Three things, however, are certain. First—and I am delighted at the fact, such as it is—we are not to have the universal £26 this year, still less the universal £26 next year, and still less again the increase forecast for the year after. The mandatory statutory increases, the "closely integrated arithmetic," in the words of one of the Ministers in the other place, the careful calculations that


we went into in Committee are out. One thing that is absolutely clear is that all the "closely integrated arithmetic" has gone.

The second thing that is clear is that the whole new elaborate basis for rent fixing, so closely argued in Committee, as also out. We spent hour after hour arguing about the criteria, the concept, the definition of fair rents, and now, instead of the just, logical explicit principles on which fair rents were to be based, so frequently explained by Ministers upstairs, we have an entirely new and arbitrary definition of fair rents. Fair rents are what Mr. Ulrich decides they are. I say this in no critical sense of this officer, who put up an outstanding performance during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Ulrich has become the boss of British housing. He is effectively the Minister. He decides what rents shall be paid up and down the country. How he does this I find it difficult to comprehend. He must sit somewhere in the middle of a huge web of telecommunications networks, and after a quick glance at the map he rings up the town clerk of Seaham UDC and says "Your increase is 60p."He then rings up another town clerk on another telephone, perhaps the town clerk of Seaton Valley, and says "Your increase is to be 80p." On another telephone he rings up Fulwood in Lancashire and says "You can have 40p." To Brent he says "You can have 55p."

It is a miraculous performance. He must suffer badly from telephonitis. It is possible that he is only a puppet, or the name at the bottom of a letter, and that it is the Minister himself who is taking these profound and detailed decisions. If he is, he must combine the analytical intellect of an Einstein and the decisiveness of Napoleon—he would like that—the talent for communications of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). I doubt any of those things, but at any rate it is a nice thought.

That is the second thing that is clear about the Bill; namely, that rent fixing is totally arbitrary and is carried out in a little room by Mr. Ulrich and his colleagues, and that is the end of this

marvellous new structure of fair rents which we were promised and bitterly opposed.

The third thing that is clear and highly relevant to the Amendment is that since there must be many Clause 62(4) applications, either in the pipeline not having received an answer, or which have not yet been made to the Minister, we shall have a stream of new Ulrich directives going on certainly until 1st September, and possibly until 1st October, and redoubling the confusion that exists. It is possible that we could get the absurd situation of some authority putting up rents by £1 or 65p in October and subsequently receiving a directive from the Minister that those rents are to go down. That would typify the confusion that we have got into.

The situation in the local government world is one of utter chaos. We have a new and different Bill, but nobody knows in detail what it means. To the extent that this confusion reflects the partial retreat that has occurred on rent rises I welcome it, but it makes the timetable of the Bill, which is worsened by the Amendment, wholly impossible. A local authority will not have time to do everything after the Bill has come into force on 9th August. And it cannot anticipate the Bill before then, contrary to what Lord Drumalbyn said, because it does not know what is required of it. The Bill says only what is required of an authority if it does not make a Clause 62(4) application. But if an authority does make an application, the Bill does not tell it what to do and there is no way in which it can anticipate the Bill, however closely it has followed our debates. It can only wait for the reply to come from the Minister. The whole thing is an utter shambles. Amendment No. 102 makes the shambles worse, and that is why we shall vote against it.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Would the effect of the Opposition Amendment to Amendment No. 102 be that the operation of the Bill, including in the private sector, would be delayed for one year.

Mr. Crosland: I should dearly like to answer the question. Unfortunately, I understand that Amendment is out of order and has not be selected.

Mr. Leonard: I should like to follow the incisive criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) with some illustrations from my own local authority, the London Borough of Havering. This authority is a striking example of the impossible position into which the timetable enshrined in the Bill is putting local authorities.
I take no pleasure in reminding the Minister that I predicted these difficulties, both in general and in regard to the London Borough of Havering, when he descended on the Standing Committee with the Amendment which is now Clause 62(4). I said:
Unless this concession by the Minister is paralleled by another concession…to postpone the implementation of these increases by a year, I do not see that it is of any value at all to the London Borough of Havering or to any other local authority which might benefit from this concession, if it was given with the proper time."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 24th February, 1972; c. 2470.]
The Minister then refused to make the concession that was asked for by the Opposition. I hope that in the intervening period he has gained in wisdom and that when he replies to the debate he will announce that he is prepared to give some respite to local authorities in the position of my borough.
The London Borough of Havering is writing to the Minister setting out what I believe to be an extremely strong case for increases of less than £1 under the terms of Clause 62(4). It will probably propose an increase, on average, of 50p from 1st October. The letter has not yet been sent, but it ought to be in the Minister's hands by the end of the week. I wonder how long it will take the Minister to reply. If he takes his responsibilities seriously, and if he checks the assertions that will be made by my borough, I do not see how he can possibly take less than two weeks in which to reply.
Indeed, if the Minister did reply within two weeks, my constituency would regard it as a great courtesy for the Minister to reply to a complicated letter on such a difficult subject in that short time.
But if the Minister takes two weeks to reply, we shall already be in the middle of August. If in his reply he agrees to a lower figure for the increase in Havering—every local authority so far which has received a reply from the

Minister has been awarded a lower figure, though not always the one it asked for—there will be just two weeks left for a large number of important and essential decisions and actions to be taken by the elected councillors and the officials of my borough. As my right hon. Friend has said, by 1st September of this year every tenant must be informed of the increase which is to be imposed upon him by 1st October.
There are 14,000 dwellings represented in the housing revenue account of the London Borough of Havering. When the Minister's reply is received, my council will have to decide how the average figure is to be spread across the 14,000 dwellings. When that has been decided, 14,000 notices of increase will have to be prepared and delivered to tenants; 14,000 ledger entries will have to be altered; the rent cards for 14,000 tenants will have to be altered. The official responsible told me this afternoon on the telephone that this will involve the altering of 80,000 figures. All this will have to be done in the last two weeks of August.
On previous occasions when there have been rent increases in my borough, this whole activity has taken 4½ months. As I said in Standing Committee on 24th February, the town clerk reported to the council that if the normal procedures were to be gone through on this occasion the London Borough of Havering would have had to have known by 17th May the level of increase which would be required on 1st October. A responsible official told me today that this is just not possible in practice to do all these things in two weeks. Another official described it to me as an administrative nightmare. These are the words not of elected councillors who may be suspected of having a political axe to grind but of responsible professional officers who say that it will be impossible to carry out what will be their duty under the law if the Bill is enacted.
It may be suggested that it would have been more prudent for the London Borough of Havering to have written to the Minister some time ago and made an earlier application under Clause 62(4), as other authorities have done. It was open to my authority to have done that, but it does not lie with Ministers to say that the boroughs should have done so. The Billhas been extensively amended


in all its stages. If the members of my local authority were to take full account of all the relevant provisions of the Bill and ensure that they were putting forward an application which had the maximum chance of acceptance, they had a responsibility to wait to see what the final shape of the Bill was. They are, in fact, making an extremely speedy application. They will have their application in probably by the end of this week and it may well reach the Minister before the Bill receives Royal Assent. Therefore, my borough cannot fairly be accused of dilatory conduct.

7.45 p.m.

I have spoken of the impossible administrative burden which will be placed predominantly upon paid officials. Then, there is the question of who is to take the political decision in the borough when the Minister's reply comes. When it arrives in, say, mid-August, who is to take the responsibility of shaping the policy which my borough will implement in the light of the Minister's decision?

The next meeting of the housing committee will be on 5th September. The next meeting of the full council will be on 11 th October. Is it suggested that one man alone should take the effective decision? Is it suggested that the chairman of the housing committee should take the responsibility on behalf of 250,000 residents for what the policy should be? Which hon. Member would relish taking such a responsibility on his own shoulders?

It is likely that the chairman of the housing committee will want to consult at least the leader of the council before taking a decision. The leader of my local authority is going on holiday on 11th August and will not return until 1st September. Is he to be expected to cancel his holiday or not to go on holiday at all? Is it suggested that on 11th August, possibly the very day when 630 hon. Members will take off for 2½ months' holiday, the leader of my council should cancel his holiday to be at hand to make this decision?

Mr. Neil McBride: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Government are not too sure of much in relation to the Bill when one considers the whole proposition?

Mr. Leonard: My hon. Friend points to the total muddle which the Government are in, not only on this issue but on many other matters.
Councillors and aldermen are very responsible and hardworking people who are unable to take their holidays in any month but August because of their responsibilities as elected members of local authorities which keep them busy during the other 11 months. The leader of my council talked to me on the telephone this afternoon and made this caustic comment: "The Government have laid this egg and they expect councillors to sit on it during the month of August and hatch it."
If the House allows the Bill to reach the Statute Book in its present form and with the wholly unrealistic timetable it contains, it will be guilty of an act of consumate irresponsibility and it will show that the welfare and convenience of both paid local government officials and elected councillors are of as little consequence to this most reactionary of Governments as are the interests of council tenants which the Bill is designed to attack.

Mr. James Hill: If I understood correctly from the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), we are not discussing the Amendment tabled by him and his right hon. and hon. Friends but are talking about the difference between one month and two weeks. We are making heavy weather of this. I cannot see how with the most careful of deliberations on this we shall help the person who is going on holiday on 11th August or any other person who may not be in the country for 2½ months. If the Opposition would like to debate this point, surely the Amendment should be to make it at least three months.
If we face the reality of saying "Is it to be one month?" or "It is to be two weeks?", obviously there will be many local authorities in difficulty. Clearly, many local authorities have held back. In view of the peculiar situation, with inflation and all the things that can weigh with a Government, many local authorities have thought that possibly the Government will draw back from the brink and and not implement the Bill. I advise


most local authorities that they are making a grave error. At this time they should be concentrating on making the Bill as great a success as they can. They are able to refer to the Department, to apply under Clause 62(4) and to implement the Bill in the early stages at the 50p, as many local authorities have already done.
In the past, a local authority has had to move within three months to implement any normal rent increase put forward in its own council. Local authorities have been ready to do that. There is no difference between this rent increase and any other.

Mr. Clinton Davis: How is a council supposed to implement what the Government claim to be absolutely basic to the Bill, that is, the rebate provision? Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that local authorities have had sufficient time for that? Was there any obligation upon a local authority to make provision for that until the Bill became law?

Mr. Hill: The same would apply to rents. There is no reason to apply any increase in rents until the Bill becomes law But authorities which think ahead and look to the amount of work which, perhaps, they will have to do before the summer will obviously aim for their rent rebates in October, and for the private sector in January. One cannot put all the blame on the Bill. We spent months—many months, it seems—discussing it in Committee as thoroughly as the Opposition would allow us in the circumstances—

Mr. David Stoddart: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that he and his hon. Friends discussed the Bill as much as the Opposition would allow? Let him read the Official Report of our proceedings in Committee and count the number of times that he and his hon. Friends spoke. In spite of the adequate time which they were offered, they refused to get to their feet to talk about the Billat all, although we invited them to do so on many occasions, especially in the middle of the night.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is a typical example of what we had to put up with in Committee. An intervention became a speech, a speech

became a tirade and a tirade became three or four hours of stultifying nonsense. [An Hon. Member: "The hon. Gentleman was not there."] Indeed I was. If we had to resort to a little sustenance at times, the reason can be readily understood.
We are here discussing the difference between four weeks and two weeks. Surely we can dispose of that in a very short time and get on with the real meat of the matter.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall not spend too long referring to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill), but I recall thast he was one of the Government back benchers who occasionally took part in debates in Committee. On one occasion he regaled us with details of rents paid by Southampton tenants and on the following day he had to come back and apologise because he had given wrong information.
The Minister said that Lords Amendment No. 84 gave some teeth in that landlords would have to provide accounts to justify service charges where these applied. It is gratifying that the Minister can recognise teeth in that Amendment since he does not, apparently, recognise the teeth in the general levels of rent which will result from the Bill. A week or two ago I asked him at Question Time whether, at a recent local government conference, he had said that the Housing Finance Bill was the Government's weapon against inflation. His Undersecretary of State loyally defended him and spoke of the anti-inflationary character of the Bill. He added that a lot of people would be paying less rent and that rebates would be applied in many hundreds of thousands of cases.
That is true, but what the Minister failed to mention then—I suspect he still does not understand it—is that very many of the people who will qualify for a rebate are already paying no rent whatever since their rent is covered by supplementary benefit rent allowance. Also, he fails to understand that many hundreds of thousands of those who may qualify for rebate will still pay more rent than they are paying now, even after the rebate is granted. The number of tenants who will qualify for rebate, even if all of them apply—there are doubts about that, of course—will be dwarfed by the


millions who will be paying very much more rent, and that result will be extremely inflationary with a far greater impact than any alleged anti-inflationary character which the Under-Secretary of State saw in the Bill when he answered my Question.
The Bill will lead to an annual leap in the rents of millions of tenants. This is bound to be reflected in higher wage demands. The CBI realises this. The TUC knows it. Tenants are well aware of it. Both officials and elected representatives in local government are aware of it. Everyone in Britain, apparently, is aware of that inevitable consequence of the Bill, except the Government themselves.
In many areas—this certainly applies in mine—the effect of the Bill will be such that wage demands in the next two years will need to be for £2·50 not to bring a penny of greater purchasing power but merely to cover the extra inflation which the Government will be inflicting upon tenants.
That situation cannot easily be borne. It will add to the sort of confrontation which we are already witnessing in our society as a result of the Government's measures. We shall see, so to speak, a little of the breath of Ulster brought into Britain, and it ought not to be. It would be wrong to exaggerate or over-emphasise the confrontation consequences of the Bill, but they are serious and should be carefully considered before we go further.
Like the Government, the Bill is abrasive. The Government should not bring it in until they have considered the abrasive aspects of it. It will greatly anger, as it has already angered, many millions of people. It will be particularly annoying since it will take power from local government, from the people, and pass it to the centre, to the bureaucracy. Rents will be determined not by the housing chairman and his committee after they have been elected by those whom they represent. They will be determined by officials, perhaps responsible and able men but officials none the less who have no allegiance to the electorate in the area concerned. Perhaps more nastily, rents may be determined neither by able civil servants nor by elected local representatives but by gentlemen, who may well stand to benefit, sitting on rent

scrutiny boards and drawing a considerable income as a result.
If the Government and the Conservative Party wish to reduce the temperature in British society, if they wish to show that their claws are retracted, they ought to accept that some delay in the implementation of the Bill is desirable. The Minister is not a cautious man—we have seen little evidence of prudence or caution in his attitude to the Bill—but even he has accepted that the Measure which he presented originally was not perfect and he has brought in the 2 per cent. arrangement, which will cause a great deal of bother politically in both national and local government over the months ahead. He has brought that in, however, and it is a sign that there is a ray of hope that the Government may be prepared to accept that the Bill at this time will be a real disadvantage.
We are suspicious about the 2 per cent. arrangement, especially since it seemed to be brought in more to hold the Conservative municipal line than to be of great assistance to local authorities generally. It does not assist the safe Tory areas, which obeyed the Bill already in the spring. As it happens, their obedience was premature since they might well have stood to benefit under the 2 per cent. arrangement.
A few authorities which cannot be classed as safely Conservative decided after some consideration that they should obey the Bill at the beginning of the current financial year. One authority which I know quite well decided in March that it would begin to implement the Bill. The officers of that comparatively small authority worked very hard, working overtime, to prepare all the necessary arrangements to increase the rents by 50p and introduce the rebate scheme. Two or three days after they had completed the task, the Minister during the Report stage changed all the details of the rebate scheme and they had all that work to do again.

8.0 p.m.

Many of the 1,200 or 1,300 housing authorities do not employ large staffs. The demands already made by the Government's vacillation have brought many officers to the verge of breakdown as a result of the overwork that has been imposed. If the Government wish to be a little more charitable to the staffs of


our local authorities, they should seek to reduce some of their haste and impetuousness over the Bill. Many housing authorities are to disappear as a result of local government reorganisation. We should not accompany excessive demands on the staff and the injustices inevitable in this Bill with the partial political gerrymandering associated with the Local Government Bill. The smaller authorities are in great difficulty, and this will be compounded because of the time at which the Bill is to be introduced.

The Government continue to protest that their intentions are kind and that they wish to see all authorities, no matter what their political character, accepting the Bill. I must subscribe to the view that laws should be obeyed. I think that the authorities in my area will implement this nasty Bill on 1st October. The chairman of one housing committee in my constituency told me that he thought the Bill was appalling but that he believed that the law should be obeyed and that therefore the Bill should be implemented on 1st October. But he took the principle of the Birmingham Amendment and said "We shall be submitting an application under Clause 63(4) that the rent increases in our area should be less than £1." He can refer to the fact that wage rates, if below average, are possibly relevant.

I am concerned about what will happen if that application is dismissed with contempt, if the response it elicits is rather aggressive. The responsible councillors in that authority, who now seem to be looking favourably upon the idea of implementation on 1st October, could decide to meet the Minister's attitude with an aggressive response. The Minister will then send in the housing commissioner. That could lead to a greater measure of confrontation. The Minister may well feel that he has covered the arrangements for the introduction of the housing commissioner, but what happens if the housing commissioner, having reached the local government offices, having selected his office and having begun his work, is then told that that office is required for redecoration or the heating breaks down? The councillors may do what I did when I was chairman of a local authority and visit the office frequently to remain fully in touch with what is happening in the town hall. If every member of the local

authority decided to call regularly and frequently upon the housing commissioner to keep an eye on what he was doing—

Mr. Raison: On a point of order. I know that we are going through a very confusing procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should be grateful if we could be told in what respect, if any, the hon. Gentleman's speech bears on the subject under discussion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Gentleman must give me a little time. I shall watch the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) carefully to see whether he is out of order, but I do not think he is out of order now.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who delivered five Second Reading speeches, at every possible opportunity, without ever going into the detail of the Bill, is hardly the person to know whether hon. Members are in order now.
We suggest that there should be a little less haste and a little more prudence over the Bill. The Government cannot claim that the matter is so urgent that immediate, decisive, prompt and panic action should be taken. After all, the tenants are not doing so very well, but the land speculators and the house profiteers certainly are. It is not the council tenant who is making his fortune but the house and land speculator. If the Government can sit idly by and watch the scandal of the sort of increases there have been throughout the country, including house price increases of 15 per cent. in a three-month period in my constituency, they need not rush to introduce this sort of obnoxious Bill.

Mr. David Stoddart: It has been a source of great amazement to me to see the Government's actions as the Bill has progressed. It has been a source of amazement, too, that they hold local government in such fantastic contempt, as has been proved every time we have had a discussion on the Bill.
It has been shown that the Government, who before the General Election were preaching that they were the Party who believed in more freedom and responsibility for local government, are now


showing that they have nothing but contempt for local government and the people who serve it, at both member and officer level. By the Bill, the Government are prescribing a very important activity of the local authorities. As we go along, it is becoming even more plain that local authorities are becoming mere rent collectors for the central Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Grismby (Mr. Crosland) showed in his opening speech, rents will now be fixed not by the local authority but by an official in a Whitehall office. Nothing could show the Government's contempt for local government more than that, because local government has felt, and feels now, that Whitehall is on its back, and that Whitehall should be taken off its back. The Conservatives promised before the General Election that that would be done. It is yet another promise which has not been honoured. I believe that at the next General Election Conservative Members will pay for the contempt they are showing.
The Government have not considered the situation of local authorities in any respect. They have not considered the additional staff that will be needed to implement the Bill, and the additional office accommodation required. They have not considered whether the existing officials will be able to train the additional staff required to adminster the Bill. They have not understood the difficulties that local authorities will encounter when the Local Government Bill becomes law.
Many district councils which will be the housing authorities have no idea yet of the powers available under the Local Government Bill until the Lords Amendment is made to Clause 101. They are, therefore, quite unsure about precisely what they will be doing when the Bill becomes law. They are also completely unsure about what they will have to do under this obnoxious Measure. There will be an administrative nightmare for the local authorities. To my sorrow and chagrin, my local authority implemented the Bill in April. The administrative chaos which followed it had to be seen to be believed. The tenants in Swindon suffered because of inadequate preparation and inadequate knowledge of the implications of the Bill,

Mr. Raymond Gower: Will the hon. Member explain that part of the changes which caused this great administrative nightmare? Was it the partial increase towards a fair rent, or was it something else which is apparently yet to be explained?

Mr. Stoddart: There were several reasons. If the hon. Member wants me to go into them I shall. The tenants were unsure whether they should apply for a rebate because they did not previously have to apply for a rebate if they had been drawing a rent allowance. Under the Bill anyone drawing supplementary benefit must make his application for rebate in the same way as any other tenant. Many tenants were completely unaware of this, and there was, therefore, misunderstanding leading to complete chaos between the local authority and the Supplementary Benefits Commission. There was so much chaos that the offices of the local authority were inundated with inquiries and flooded out with people trying to discover where they stood.
It was not long after the provisions were implemented that the Bill was amended in order to raise the level of allowances under Schedule 3. That, of course, caused an additional administrative nightmare for the local authority. There was a further aspect which people certainly did not understand. The local authority did not understand it either. Many people, far from paying 50p increase, found they had to pay up to £2 more because of the differences between the rent rebate scheme in the Bill and the rent rebate scheme which had been operating previously. There was also the difficulty of getting sufficient staff in sufficient tune to deal with all the rebate forms which came in and required to be processed as soon as possible.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member has explained that there was an overlap between the arrangements between supplementary benefit and rebates. Under legislation passed by previous Conservative and Labour Governments, however, people are entitled to claim rate rebates, and local authorities are experienced in dealing with the overlap between rate rebates and supplementary benefits.

Mr. Stoddart: I do not believe that there is any overlap. The rent rebate is quite a different thing from drawing supplementary benefit in respect of rates, and anyone who draws supplementary benefit is not entitled to a rate rebate. The local authorities, therefore, do not have experience of this sort of thing, although many local authorities have experience of administering rent rebate schemes. Because of the administration of the previous rent rebate scheme, many people, including old-age pensioners, found themselves having to pay not 50p extra but an increase of as much as £2 per week. A completely chaotic situation has been created, and I hope it will be ironed out.

8.15 p.m.

In addition to the difficulties for the local authorities, there are also difficulties for the tenants. Many tenants are confused as to what they can and cannot do under the Bill, and with the rapid implementation of the Bill they will be unable to obtain sufficient information about their rights or make suitable application for a rebate if they so desire. I would have thought the Government had learned their lesson about doing things too hastily.

Mr. George Cunningham: Not this one.

Mr. Stoddart: As my hon. Friend says the Government seem to learn nothing from their past mistakes. They continue to make the same mistakes and to compound them with even worse ones. One would have thought they would have learnt from their experience in preparing Bills too hurriedly the dangers of too much haste.
As the Bill has progressed the Government have retreated on one point after another. Had they considered the situation and had they done research, they would never have included a provision for a 50p increase in April and they would not have provided for a £1 increase in October. Had they done their research properly, the Bill would surely have been drafted differently. But they have not done their homework to discover the real situation. They are relying upon the political propaganda that they fed out to the nation before the last General Election. They really believed that council tenants were the pampered pets of

the Socialist Party and were almost getting their housing for nothing. The Government were the victims of their own propaganda. Now a little man in the Department of the Environment will have to look at each area separately and will have to decide at a stroke—about the only thing that is done at a stroke—whether the figures should be 35p, 65p or £1 in October.
As in so many other cases, the Government have broken faith with the local authorities which implemented in April. Those authorities have already imposed a £26 increase per annum on their council tenants. Had they waited, as Birmingham waited, and applied under Clause 62(4) for exemption they might have got away with a 65p increase from 1st October. In those circumstances, instead of paying £26 per annum extra in 1972–73, those tenants would have been paying only £16·90. The local authorities which implemented these increases in April at the Government's behest have had the wrong end of the stick.
After what we have heard about the man from the Ministry setting rents in Birmingham, Newcastle, Brent and many other towns, I should like to hear about the future of the rent scrutiny boards. Somewhere in the Department there must be criteria for use in fixing new rents by the man in the Department. If this information is available and if decisions are being taken in the Department, what is to be the future of the rent scrutiny boards? Are they to override the man from the Department? Will they be able to say that the man from the Department is wrong and that a rent should be higher? People will need to know these things, because we do not want even more confusion about the Bill.
I urge the Minister to reconsider the Bill even at this late hour. If the Government want to do anything to rehabilitate themselves with the electorate—I suppose that I should not be giving that sort of advice, but I am a little sympathetic to them at the moment, because they have practically no support—they should go away and say that they believe that in the interests of the country and in the interests of reducing inflationary pressure they will defer the operation of the Bill for 12 months. Our Amendment has been ruled out of order, but it would still be in order for the Minister


to have eleventh-hour thoughts, almost deathbed thoughts, about the Bill and defer its operation for 12 months. By doing so, he could gain himself at least a few friends, and he has none at the moment, as I think he realises. I hope that he will do it for the good of the country and of all tenants.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) concluded by making a plea for a delay of one year in the implementation of the Bill. That is the burden of the Opposition Amend-that was ruled out of order. The House and the country should try to understand what would be meant by delaying the Bill for one year.
The debate this evening, as many others we have had, has been treated as an occasion for a wide-ranging attack on all sorts of aspects of Government policy. The attack on the Bill by the Opposition has centred on the one ingredient, admittedly the controversial ingredient, of the fixing of council house rents. It should be recognised that there are many other important aspects of the Bill, all of which would be deferred for a year if the hon. Gentleman's recommendation was adopted and the Bill were delayed. It would do grave damage to many people and the House should be reminded of some of the things that would be delayed.
One consequence would be that the national rebate scheme would be deferred for one year. Many local authorities have rebate schemes, some of them good. Many local authorities since April have been implementing the national rebate scheme. Nor would the hon. Gentleman's proposal allow only the national rebate scheme to be referred until next year. Among authorities such as those which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—alas not with us at the moment—is so fond of quoting we should never have a rebate scheme because, as the hon. Member has said again and again, such authorities are against such rebate schemes. Thus, the first consequence of delay for one year would be to defer the national rebate scheme, which will bring substantial help to many tenants throughout the country.
Delay would also defer the rent allowance scheme. The House knows that, to the shame of the Opposition, during the

years when they were in office they did nothing to implement a rent allowance scheme for private tenants. The Milner Holland report came out in 1965 and contained a good case at that stage for some sort of rent allowance scheme for private tenants. The Labour Party was then in power for five years but did absolutely nothing to implement that proposal. Further delay would defer the rent allowance scheme even more, and if the Labour Party were returned to power I doubt whether we should ever see that scheme.
Another effect might have more appeal for hon. Members on the Opposition side. It would be that the decontrol of the higher rateable value controlled tenancies would be delayed. But I would have the House know that it would be only those properties of the higher rateable value, with a rateable value of more than £80 in London and more than £45 elsewhere. Decontrol for other tenancies would go ahead as prescribed. But where the case for decontrol is most overwhelming there would be delay. As a result, much hardship would be suffered by many small landlords of one kind or another, and no one with any close knowledge of this subject would feel that that would be for the general good.
Another effect would be that the new pattern of subsidies for housing associations would be delayed. In Committee my right hon. Friend sensibly made a number of concessions to housing associations, so that by the end of those proceedings they were fairly happy with what they had got.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The housing association additional subsidies have already come into effect and do not depend on the Bill.

Mr. Raison: I am doubtful that what the hon. Gentleman has said is true. If I have said something wrong, of course I withdraw. My right hon. Friend says that I am right, so I am reinforced.

Mr. Freeson: I believe that a few weeks ago an order was laid by the Minister affecting the provisions we are talking about and bringing them into effect, but it has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Raison: A large part of the Bill is concerned with housing associations. I


cannot but believe that the provisions are of benevolent effect to housing associations and I know that they are happy about what has been done.
The hon. Member for Swindon complained about the Bill being amended during its passage. What is the point of Committee proceedings, Report stage and proceedings in another place if there are not Amendments? I have no doubt that the Bill is better than it was when we began last autumn, and that is the whole object of parliamentary procedure.

Mr. David Stoddart: My objection is that in Committee the Government refused Amendments put forward by the Opposition and then came forward on Report with their own Amendments. Thus we were wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Raison: I think I have been a Member of the House for the same length of time as the hon. Gentleman and I will not lay down the law to him about the traditions of the House of Commons. Time and again in every piece of legislation it is apparent that the Government will not immediately accept Amendments in Committee but will accept them later in the proceedings. Apart from anything else, they must have time to consider the purport of the Amendments. What has happened on this Bill must be the same as has happened on many other Bills over the years.

8.30 p.m.

To go back to what I was saying, all those are respects in which the hon. Gentleman's attempt to delay the Bill would be damaging. Finally there is the damage that delay would cause to the whole new subsidy structure which is a very important part of the legislation, although it is not often mentioned by the Opposition. To delay the Bill for one year would delay the slumclearance subsidy, the transition subsidy, the operational deficit subsidy, the rent allowance and rebate subsidies and the town development subsidy. That whole new pattern of subsidies which has been widely accepted by the experts would be delayed. There have been quarrels about particular points, but generally speaking the Opposition recognise the value of this new subsidy pattern.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not recognise the value of anything from the Government side of the House.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman would be incapable of recognising anything good that was put in front of his eyes, but his colleagues know that the slum clearance subsidy, for example, is of great value and importance, and the effect of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Swindon would be to delay important parts of the Bill.
Hon. Gentleman opposite have been arguing often in a purely destructive framework. The intermittent constructive proposals they have put forward have often been absorbed by my right hon. Friend, but the barrenness of much of their case has been exposed once again.

Mr. George Cunningham: Earlier in the debate a complaint was made that an hon. Member's speech was out of order. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has spoken at considerable length about an Amendment which has been ruled out of order and which he should not have been discussing. Before leaving the Amendment which is apparently out of order, it occurs to me that if the Minister wanted to move an Amendment to postpone the coming into effect of the Bill for 12 months it would probably have been in order.
The serious aspect of the point now before the House has been before the House and the Committee during the whole passage of the Bill. Implicit and explicit in the Government's defence of their case has been the idea that it is up to local authorities to watch what is happening in the House and to take preparatory steps to implement Bills before they are passed by Parliament. That is a despicable and completely unacceptable practice. There is no reason why a local authority before a Bill becomes law should be required to take steps which will be required only if it becomes law.
In effect the Bill was intended to have retrospective effect in that the Government have said to local authorities "If before we manage to get the Bill through the House you do X, after it comes into effect you will not have to comply with the text of the Bill in exactly the same way as you otherwise would". It is a serious thing to start introducing that kind


of principle into legislation. We do not expect any better from the present Minister for Housing and Construction but I would suggest that there ought to be, and if we think about it there probably are, a number of hon. Members on the Government side—at the moment they may not be in the House—who would object in principle to this.

Mr. Gower: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying that there is anything in the Bill which compels a local authority to take action prior to the coming into force of the Bill.

Mr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman would try to follow me, he would understand that what I am saying is that the Bill provides that if a certain increase has not been introduced in the period before the coming into force of this Measure, a higher increase will have to be introduced afterwards. That is a form of blackmail. That is something which, if we had a constitution in this country—and it is high time we had one to stop this sort of nonsense—it would not be permitted to put into a Bill. People would have to wait until a Bill had passed through Parliament before there was any need to implement it.
The Minister's case in supporting the Lords Amendment was that local authorities had been watching what was happening and had been reading the endless discussions in Committee and that although the time between Royal Assent and the coming into force of the Measure would be only a fortnight, that did not mean that the implementation of the Bill would have to be squeezed into that time because before the Bill had received Royal Assent it was up to local authorities to assume that it would get Royal Assent. If local authorities have to assume that every Bill introduced by the Government will pass through unamended, we might as well pack up this joint and all go home. That is not the way in which Parliament should operate. If more Government Bills and parts of Bills came a cropper in going through this House, we might make more of a reality of the proceedings in this place than we do at the moment.
My own Borough of Islington is one of those which did not implement in April but took advantage of Clause 62(4) and has had correspondence with the

Minister. That was a sensible precaution. In the light of decisions which have been made and which might be made in respect of other areas, Islington, like Romford, might also have second thoughts. It too might seek a reduction in the level in the increase so far agreed. If the Bill is to be brought into force after this ridiculously short period of a fortnight, the time during which it will be possible to look at the various figures which have been fixed and the background to local situations against which they have been fixed will be reduced to such an extent that we will not be able to make a sensible assessment of whether the implementation is being rationally applied.
I cannot help wondering what would be said if a Labour Government were doing this kind of thing. We would be told that we were riding roughshod over the rights of duly elected local authorities, that we were behaving in a dogmatic manner, a typically Socialist manner, showing no understanding of the technical difficulties of doing all this administrative work in the height of summer. It would probably be mentioned in passing that this was attributable to our lack of business experience—and of course we know the relevant business experience which the housing Minister has. Might I remind the House of his relevant experience. It is probably the first time in our history, thank God, that we have had a housing Minister who has been in his own personal right a slum landlord.

Mr. Neil McBride: My hon. Friend did not have the distinction which I and others of my hon. Friends had of serving on the Committee. May I tell my hon. Friend that we were appalled by the Minister's lack of knowledge? I say that in the right hon. Gentleman's presence and he knows that it is true.

Mr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend does not surprise me in the least. I have been appalled by the Minister for Housing and Construction on many occasions on other subjects.

Mr. Ronald Brown: During the time the Labour Government tried to keep rents down in 1968 and 1969, the Islington Borough Council, which was Tory-controlled, deliberately fought against the Government and wanted to put the rents up.

Mr. Cunningham: I recall the record of the Islington Borough Council under its thankfully short period of Conservative rule.

Mr. Raison: By fairly general consent, the Conservative administration of Islington was remarkably good.

Mr. Cunningham: The Conservative control of Islington brought great changes in many respects. I am familiar with the situation before and after the period about which the hon. Member for Aylesbury is thinking. I know what the people in Islington felt about the increases in rent which resulted from that change of control. I know what they felt about the greater encouragement given to the colonialisation of the area at the expense of the 10,000 people on the waiting list. I know what they feel about the vast increases in improvement grants which the Minister insists on encouraging, which also is to the disadvantage of the 10,000 people on the waiting-list. I could speak on the subject for a long time, longer than you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would like me to take, especially since all this is out of order.
There is no reason why any local authority should take anticipatory action on these provisions. For the Government to come forward and say, on a Bill of this size and complexity, that within a fortnight of its being passed, within a fortnight of the time when all doubt about what the text will be is removed, it must be implemented throughout the country and proper action taken in the town halls, is a contempt not only for this House but for the democratically elected local authorities. I hope that when we on this side return to power we shall have learned some of the lessons which the Minister for Housing and Construction is teaching us.

Mr. Gower: The speeches which we have heard this evening have not been complaining of delay or anticipation, or about a fortnight or a month. They have been once again directed against the basic principles of the Bill. Most of the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) who preceded him in this debate brought forward the arguments, which were advanced during the earlier stages of the Bill, against the very prin-

ciples under which there is to be an increase towards fair rents. Those arguments have called not merely for some delay but, by inference, for annulment of the proceedings. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West is not submitting that the timing is the only thing which perturbs him. I am sure that he shares the view of his hon. Friends that it is a matter not only of timing but of the very principles of the Bill.
However unpleasant it may be to the Opposition, and however much individuals among them may object, the bases of the Bill in varying degree were brought forward in legislation by the Labour Government.

Mr. Freeson: Mr. Freeson indicated dissent.

Mr. Gower: I know that the hon. Gentleman objects to that assertion, but the fact remains that the model of fair rents was provided by the Labour Government's legislation.

Mr. Freeson: I do not want to enter into a long argument with the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I merely refer him to the Committee proceedings, where we went through this matter point by point and Clause by Clause, showing the disparity between the present Billunder the heading "Fair Rents Procedure" and the procedures which were established in the 1965 and 1968 Rent Acts. The fact that the label is the same does not mean that the procedures are the same. In fact, they are not.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) resumes his speech, I ask him to relate his remarks more closely to the Amendments. He is going very wide of them now.

Mr. Gower: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But we have heard a whole succession of speeches by hon. Members opposite complaining about the basis of the legislation. Apparently, they want an extra period in which to accommodate these changes, but I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that the loss involved would be considerable. The Opposition do not appear to attach a great deal of importance to the advantages and benefits of a rebate which is


applied across the board throughout the country.

Mr. George Cunningham: What would the loss be by bringing the Bill into force after a month instead of after a fortnight?

Mr. Gower: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that a fortnight is not very considerable, but other hon. Members opposite have been suggesting that the period should be far longer. They have been arguing in some respects for a much longer period and in other respects for complete annulment of the Bill.
The benefits and advantages of a rebate scheme which can be implemented throughout the country are very considerable. It is within the experience of many of us that there are many advantages in those areas which have a reasonably well worked out rebate scheme. My own experience is that with such schemes rent distortion has been far less than in those areas which have tried to manage without such a scheme. Of course there is inequality with the schemes now in existence. Some are first-class, others are moderate, and others are badly worked out. If we have further delay, it will mean simply continuing with schemes of varying quality. It will be of great benefit to all if we can have a scheme across the board throughout the whole country which will enable rebates to be paid to those who are most in need of them.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the rebate scheme for council tenants under this Bill is primarily intended to cushion the impact of the much higher rents for a section of the population and that, by and large, the vast majority of council tenants will derive no benefit? In that case, what is wrong with postponing Clause 6, which deals with the mandatory increases, even if the rebates are postponed as well?

Mr. Gower: We have heard that argument at all stages of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that in many instances people will be better off over and above their present position. In other words, the rebates will not merely serve to cushion them; in some cases

they will bring positive benefit. What is far more important is that the benefit will go to those in greatest need. It is a question not of quantum but of merit, which under the present arrangement is not the case. With the hon. Gentleman's knowledge, he must be aware that the present system is haphazard. Under the new, well worked out system, the greatest benefit will be to those in greatest need, which one would have thought that the Opposition would welcome because they have often said that benefit should go to those in greatest need, a view which we share.
It is a positive advantage that the early implementation of these proposals will give us a sensible scheme across the board throughout the country under which the benefits will go to those in greatest need of this kind of help in paying their local authority rents.
Some speakers have implied that, although there may be some merit in the assessment of fair rents in the private sector, there is not a similar merit in its introduction in the public sector. It would be out of order to argue that matter at length tonight, but I should have thought that the merit that hon. Members opposite found when they introduced similar proposals for the private sector could be laudably extended to the public sector.
My hon. Friend also pointed out that there are many other positive benefits in the rearrangement of subsidies, not least for slum clearance. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members groan at my reference to slum clearance. I should have thought that it was one aspect of housing in respect of which the greatest effort was needed in the months and years ahead. That, surely, is one sphere in which the greatest initiative is needed.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does not the hon. Member accept that assistance is already provided for slum clearance for local authorities which have cleared slums to build houses? The distinction in the Minister's proposal is that he is prepared to give a subsidy whether houses are built or not. That is the only difference. An area like Islington will receive no benefit.

Mr. Gower: This will be a vital help to many parts of the country where the very nature of the former restriction was


an inhibiting factor in the clearance of some of the worst slum areas. I should have thought that in a matter like this the hon. Member would be prepared to take a national view rather than a view merely of Islington. I respect the hon. Member's local knowledge and expertise on Islington, but he ought to be prepared to look beyond the boundaries of his area and admit that if this is a useful extension in many parts of the country it is a valid argument that this proposal should be implemented as soon as possible, because it is likely to add an impetus to the work of slum clearance.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Will the hon. Member tell us to which area he is referring and give us the background, showing how the Minister's proposal will help such an area?

Mr. Gower: I should be out of order if I extended this argument too greatly, but there are many cases—

Mr. Brown: Give me one.

Mr. Gover: There is a great variety of cases, up and down the country.

Mr. Brown: Explain it to me.

Mr. Gower: I hope that the hon. Member will wait. There are many areas up and down the country where the urgent need is to clear existing sites but where the work of producing a viable plan for the building of new property lags a little behind.

Mr. Brown: Where are they?

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member would not expect me to give a long string of examples. [Hon. Members: "Answer!"] The Hon. Member knows fully well—

Mr. Brown: Is Barry one of them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) knows that he must not make long-drawn-out sedentary observations. It wrecks the debate.

Mr. Gower: Fortunately, the nature of my constituency is such that it does not have this problem, but recently some of the docks areas in South Wales towns—and Barry, particularly—have been cleared without any buildings being built. That was done under other powers, but the Minister's proposals would be an

incentive to authorities to do that kind of thing.

Mr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman now say why council tenants from their rents should pay for that subsidy when it will not produce houses?

Mr. Gower: This is completely outside the terms of the Amendment and will be discussed later. I wish to emphasise that this is a valuable part of the Bill which would be deleted if the Opposition Amendment were accepted.
We cannot over-emphasise the contribution of housing associations in terms of additional benefits. There are many people who through personal circumstances, whether by reason of age or their means, cannot contemplate the private ownership of houses or flats. Many of them cannot hope for accommodation in council houses. Therefore, housing associations make a unique contribution in helping to fulfil this need. They are accommodating people who in former years were left out in the cold. In this respect the Bill brings numerous benefits which have been welcomed by the associations. It would be a serious matter if any delay were to be caused by the provisions of the Bill. These associations want to get ahead with their work for providing for those who have been among the most deprived in recent years.
I do not suggest that this is a perfect Measure, and, of course, it is not. We shall learn by experience. It is natural that a Measure involving such a large-scale change will contain imperfections. But within these provisions we have a framework which can bring the help to the people whose need is greatest. In that sense it would be a misfortune if any delay were to have had the effect of holding up the Bill.

Mr. McBride: The only thing the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and I have in common is that we represent Welsh constituencies. I should like to hear him defend the Bill in Barry, when I would certainly take the other side of the argument.
We face a Government which display over-weening arrogance. They have decided to force through this Bill at the end of July. When we look at the Conservative Party and take the Minister for


Housing as a yardstick—and I have said this to him in his presence—together with the apology of the Prime Minister, we can see the standard of ability which exists in this Government. The country can see that it is at an all-time low level.
We have heard the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) that local authorities with their intuitive faculties should appreciate what the Government want. That is surely the most far-fetched assertion that has ever been advanced in this House. Hitler thought he had these faculties, and he lost his life and a possible empire into the bargain. The Government are disregarding the views of 5½ million citizens and of the local authority associations. We see trenchant criticism of the Government's attitude in this week's issue of the Local Government Chronicle. The Government are obviously quite impervious to logical argument. We saw this in Committee, and we know that it has happened on other Bills which we have been allowed to amend in no way whatever. As a result the country finds itself in a terrible situation.

9.0 p.m.

I speak on behalf of many inhabitants of a little country, one of whose constituencies I have the honour to represent. In the Standing Committee I sought to advance the rightful arguments of some 270,000 local authority tenants in the Principality. The Tory Government have included them among the 5½ million local authority tenants in the United Kingdom. In seeking to force through this Measure they are saying to local authorities "In a fortnight you must assimilate everything in this Measure and produce the organisation necessary to carry through these gigantic administrative changes." Surely that is the argument of lunacy. However, we are dealing with the party of business, and when I look across at right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite I am proud of the people from whom I spring. This is not business. This is the maladministration of the country. No wonder we are at the low ebb that we have reached.

In Committee we saw the Government's arrogant disregard of the arguments put forward on behalf of the Welsh people, with the Secretary of State for

Wales conniving at the alteration in the circumstances of Welsh local authorities and not having the moral courage to take a place in the Committee—

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydvil): Where is he now?

Mr. McBride: As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) points out, the Secretary of State is not even here today. We could have benefited considerably from the presence of the Secretary of State in Committee. He is a lawyer of some distinction. However, there was no legal opinion of Queen's Counsel standard available to the Committee, any more than there is tonight. There should be. However, perhaps I speak with the logic of the class in which I was born, which is foreign to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
This Bill is opposed by the vast majority of the Welsh people. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil and I attended a conference last Saturday. If he has an opportunity, my hon. Friend intends to adduce arguments about the opposition to the Bill.
Most of this legislation will come into law four weeks after receiving the Royal Assent. Had a Labour Government attempted to put such a proposal into effect, the Under-Secretary of State would have been the first to object, and the howls of execration at a Labour Government would have been loud and long—

Mr. Crosland: It is two weeks now.

Mr. McBride: Yes. I said "most of it". I appreciate the point about the two weeks' assimilation period.
All local authorities have to introduce rebate schemes. I have an inquiring turn of mind. I ask: how can administrative chaos be prevented if local authorities are to be obliged to conform to a law providing for the provisional assessment of rents, not fair rents—that is a misnomer—but robbery rents They are based on comparability with the private sector, where, after everything is paid, rents should show a profit for the landlord, only in this case the profit will be creamed off with the surplus going to the Government.
The local authorities have to carry out this provisional assessment. The right is


given to the tenant to make representations within two months. Rebate schemes have to be brought in within a very short time. It means that within two months all the tenants affected have the right to make representations to their local authorities. I say to every tenant in the kindom "Use your right. It is about the only thing that you will get in this Bill when it becomes law."
We have heard a great deal about the charity of rebate. Of course it is right that the community should carry the weaker. But who will provide the finance for rebates? There is a shattering silence from the benches opposite. The great part of the finance will be provided by local authority tenants, and they will provide it for the rent allowances of private tenants as well. Let us have no myths perpetrated by the alleged businessmen on the benches opposite. They know that they are perpetrating a lie.
We then come to the matter of the surplus in the housing revenue account of any well-managed locality, which is denned by £30 multiplied by the number of houses. I have the honour to represent the eastern part of the Welsh City of Swansea, which has a well-managed housing revenue account. It is successfully managed. It has been a Labour authority for over 40 years and is recognised not only in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom as a first-class expert on housing matters. That authority wisely put its surplus in the general rate fund before the Minister could get his aristocratic hooks on it. But the surplus which we sought to vary upwards will amount only to £515,000 in the defined balance of the housing revenue account. Had it been of the reverse order, a £50 variable multiplied by the number of houses, we would have had £875,000. I am but a child in business; however, I know full well the great advantages this could confer on estate management for improving amenities, and so on, bearing in mind that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are agreed that the housing repairs account should be abolished.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) said the Minister would be received in the council tenants' heaven, I thought he was referring to a far warmer place. The surplus will be taken away and only half returned if a rent allowance is paid to private

tenants. The other half will be retained for an undisclosed purpose. What purpose? Any Governmental purpose, not housing. The Bill does not say it must be devoted to housing. It could be used for the redemption of the National Debt. I ask the Under-Secretary to say "No" to that. That is the essence of the maladministration of the country's business exemplified in this Measure and agreed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I gladly give them the opportunity of saying "No."
No local authority is required to operate this vicious anti-working class Measure—thatis what it is; the Government are seeking by this vicious Measure to depress the class from which I come and to which I am proud to belong—until it receives the Royal Assent and a directive has been issued by the Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who led the Labour Opposition so well in Standing Committee, rightly said that local authorities will probably have to assimilate the great mass of this Bill within a fortnight. Who except that miscellaneous collection of nonentities who make up the Government would believe this could be done?

Mr. Idris Owen: I have not received any complaints from the AMC or any other authority about the inadequacy of the time. [Interruption.] This is an honest statement of fact. I have had dozens of complaints from local authorities about the implementation or non-implementation of the Local Government Bill, but they are making great efforts to get on with the reorganisation of local government. I know that many local authorities are also proceeding with implementation of the Housing Finance Bill. Many of them are well ahead with their organisation and have had to ask my right hon. Friend for variations in rent because they have studied the situation and got their assessments completed. I repeat: I have not received any complaints from local authorities that the time is inadequate. I have had complaints that they do not want the implementation of the Bill at any price, but I have had no complaints about inadequacy of time.

Mr. McBride: I have seen objections to the lack of time and the time scale


generally in letters from local authority associations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the housing committee of my local authority says that not sufficient time has been given to effect the necessary administrative arrangements for its 17,500 tenants.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I speak as a Vice-President of the Urban District Councils Association. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the complaints provided by that association are not necessarily against the Measure, although some are, but are primarily against the total inadequacy of time on the basis of one month. The Amendment proposes to allow only two weeks. I put forward the complaint about the inadequacy of time with the authority of the Urban District Councils Association, quite apart from the complaints made by my own local authority.

Mr. McBride: I am indebted to my hon. Friend, who is an authority on these matters. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) will accept that and will not care to contradict a fellow Welshman. I have been a Member of the House for many years, and I have amply demonstrated that I have great faith in the personal integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert). I agree with him that not sufficient time is being allowed, and for anyone to say that it is sufficient is to stretch credibility to the limit.
On the question of the rent structure, there was the proposal letter from Birmingham which, unfortunately, did not win the local election. That letter asked for an increase of less than £1, and subsequently an Amendment was incorporated into the Bill providing that where 2 per cent. of local housing revenue account dwellings were above the so-called fair rent level application could be made for another arrangement to be instituted. But who can tell me, or any local authority, that if arrangements are made to charge 65p or 75p per week instead of £1 those are not swingeing and savage increases? I say that they are, and the Bill will provide for a mandatory increase of £1 as from 1st October unless there is a concession by the right hon. Gentleman.
We think that the rents in my city are fair. I know that the hon. Member for

Stockport, North will do me the credit of agreeing that on many occasions I have said that the present level of rents in Swansea is adequate. The result is that the city has applied for a nil increase, and I applaud its action. I suggest to the Minister that on any business consideration we could not have increased rents this fiscal year or next year.
When one considers a city such as that which I have the honour to represent in part, one wonders how it can put the Bill into effect in the time that is proposed. The Cabinet has decided that it wants the Bill by the end of July. How can the Government expect a giant community such as that at Swansea to effect all the administrative arrangements, to engage staff and to provide office accommodation when this time-scale is born of blatant Government inefficiency? No one can say that that charge is not fair. Any hon. Gentleman opposite who is adhering strictly to the truth knows that that is abundantly plain.
Every council officer is concerned about the position, as is every local authority treasurer. They are entirely at sea. They are concerned about what arrangements will be made. What instructions will the Government give? What yardstick will they lay down? I ask the Minister to elaborate further on the Birmingham rent structure proposals. Does he consider that he will make them part of the Bill, or what is his objective? We have taken our decision in Swansea. I heard my right hon. Friend declare that when wages were low rents were low. Those are natural corollaries: the one is attendant upon the other.

9.15 p.m.

Consequently, I demand that the Minister, in the Welsh context, considers the applications of Welsh local authorities to have their present rent levels considered as fair. I warn the Minister that the feeling of opposition to the Bill in Wales is growing. Wales is not a Conservative country; we have no time for Conservatives. There will be fewer of them returned from the Principality at the next election. Wales is a Labour country. It is a radical and sensible proposal that the present rent levels should obtain.

Why do the Government consider the Measure to be non-inflationary? All my


working life I have been a member of one of the great trade unions. It taught me economics and some common sense. If millions of pounds in purchasing power are taken from the economy, what are they replaced by and what is the natural sequence—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide.

Mr. McBride: I was merely seeking to argue that wage demands will follow.
It is a tragedy that all the know-how built up under Labour's great concept of housing being a social service is being swept aside and that rent scrutiny boards, composed of non-elected Government appointees, are being substituted therefore. Is this the essence of democracy? If it is the Conservative concept of democracy, it is the negation of all that I have always held dear.
In Wales there is a feeling of close relationship between the local government representative and those whom he represents. Welsh Members know that what I say is true. This sense of closeness will disappear. The Bill enjoins that the rent scrutiny board pays no regard to any representations made about the submitted provisional assessment of fair rents. That is most un-British.
The Local Government Chronicle has opposed this proposal on the ground that insufficient time is being allowed. All local authorities would agree with this view. The Tory Government lurch from one chaotic situation to another. The business of local authority is, by any standards, a gigantic business. Housing is a gigantic business. Is this being conducted in the same foot-loose fashion?
The Minister owes it to the nation to introduce a sense of business arrangement into the matter. Increased costs will be involved. There is the insufficiency of time. Local authorities will have to pay the salaries of all the extra staff engaged to operate the Bill. The arrangements envisaged by the Minister are the arrangements of bedlam, and they will create chaos in every local authority.
In Standing Committee, we had with us as junior Minister the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who is now Minister of State for Northern Ireland. He at least had read the Bill. I

fear that the Minister himself had not, and I do not think that he has read it since. But I want answers now to the questions which we have put. It is well known that, with the start of the holiday period in August, most local authorities conduct no business during that month. What do the Government expect local authorities to do in this abnormally speedy transition from the present system to the arrangements under the Bill?
The Government should introduce flexible arrangements on sensible business lines, with a proper time-scale, givingdue regard to the great body of opposition to the Bill which has built up throughout the country. This is one of the most undemocratic, most harshly drawn and legally rigid Bills. It is thoroughly unfair. It could have been conceived only in the mind of a Government which intended, and still intend, to be repressive.

Mr. Rowlands: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) in deploring the neglect and constant absence from our debates of the Secretary of State for Wales and his Minister of State. Again the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here to listen to this important debate on a matter which will profoundly affect not only the administration of the 168 or so local housing authorities in Wales but his own Department as well.
It should be emphasised in relation to the question of timing that we have in Wales a very large number of housing authorities and among them some of the smallest such authorities upon which will bear most heavily the administration of the complexities of the Bill. Our Welsh housing authorities will be confronted with a task of extreme difficulty, and it is intolerable that the Secretary of State for Wales, who is supposed to be the voice of Wales in the Cabinet, has not bothered to attend today, just as he has not bothered time and again to attend debates on the Bill. Apparently he does not care a damn what happens to the administration of Wlesh housing authorities. But he ought at least to care for his own office.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said that there is an Ulrich in the Department of the Environment. I am not sure that there will be an Ulrich in the Welsh Office. I cannot


believe that there will be sufficient experience in the Department of the Environment to deal with all the applications under Clause 62(4).
It will be difficult for the Welsh Office, in trying to handle applications under that subsection, to draw upon the experience of rent officers in Wales. The vast majority of rent officers in Wales have been made redundant or have been seriously under-employed, since 1965, and in the vast majority of cases—I am sure that this will be so in many areas—the experience of rent officers will be valueless to both housing authorities and the Welsh Office itself. In the extremely short time available, the task will inevitably bear heavily upon the Secretary of State's Department.
I wonder how that Department will deal with the applications which will pour in from Welsh housing authorities under Clause 62(4). I believe that the Welsh Office housing administration will crack under the strain with its lack of experience and expertise in such matters. The Secretary of State does not seem to care. The Department of the Environment at least can command a slightly larger range of experience of administration. The Welsh Office has about one principal to every 10 in the Department of the Environment to deal with the many complex issues which will arise, now under the supreme pressure of a few weeks, in trying to deal with the administration of the Bill.
The whole relationship between local housing authorities in Wales and the Welsh Office, which I hope it is not too boastful to say was extremely good at the time when I had the privilege to serve in the Welsh Office, will be destroyed by the impossible conditions imposed by the Bill on both the local authorities and the Welsh Office. We have not got a Welsh Ulrich. We have not got our man at Whitehall or Cathays Park to be able to deal with the sort of applications made under Clause 62(4).
But the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State will find themselves with many more serious problems than just dealing with Clause 62(4). An increasing number of Welsh housing authorities are moving into a position of non-implementation. The kind of Lords Amendment before us.

which imposes such impossible burdens of administration and which tries to ram things down the throats of local authorities, is the biggest provocation to housing authorities not to implement the Bill that we can think of. If the Government hope to woo housing authorities throughout England and Wales, but particularly radical Socialist Welsh housing authorities, into acceptance of the Bill in principle, or at least reluctant implementation, I cannot think of a single measure which would do more to drive those Welsh housing authorities which have not yet made up their minds in the opposite direction than the absurd imposition of a time limit.

Mr. McBride: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who represent Welsh constituencies face another difficulty under the Bill, since the Secretary of State referred to in the Bill is the Secretary of State for the Environment and not the Secretary of State for Wales, in whom is reposed executive responsibility for housing in Wales? Does he agree that that is an error?

Mr. Rowlands: I did not realise that it was an error. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. If the position is as he says, it should be rapidly amended. I assume, however, that the Secretary of State for Wales will act in his capacity as the Minister responsible for housing, and for the Bill, in a Welsh context.
I was saying that the imposition of an impossible time limit will alienate Welsh housing authorities and drive them into a more extreme position in their opposition to the Bill. My own authority has already decided unanimously not to take any action on the Bill, whether a fortnight or a month after Royal Assent. That was a decision taken not merely by a Socialist council, although I am glad to say that it is of course overwhelmingly Socialist, but by the whole council, including other parties on it. Therefore, in principle my authority is in out and out opposition to the Bill and has no intention of operating it. I understand that Aberdare has decided not to implement it, and I believe that other authorities will follow suit.
9.30 p.m.
At a conference I attended last Saturday, the overwhelming view was that


authorities should consider non-implementation. In these circumstances, what will the Government do in the impossibly short time limit that they are imposing on housing authorities? Have the Government drawn guidelines on how the housing commissioners will perform their tasks? I asked this question a few weeks ago and was told that there would be no need for such guidance: there will be a need now. The housing commissars will need advice and guidance within a fortnight of the Royal Assent. What sort of people will these "commissars" be? What will be their qualifications?

Mr. Ronald Brown: Members of the Tory Party.

Mr. Rowlands: I think that will be a basic requirement.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Unemployed Tory housing chairmen!

Mr. Rowlands: What sort of advertisements with the Government issue for these jobs? Is it possible to place such advertisements within a fortnight of Royal Assent? What situation does the Minister envisage? Normally with jobs of that sort there must be a time limit in order to get references ready.

Mr. McBride: Is my hon. Friend saying that by that time the strike will be over and newspapers will be printed again?

Mr. Rowlands: That is an even greater imponderable.

Mr. William Price: They could advertise in the underground Press.

Mr. Rowlands: An advertisement for a housing commissar in Private Eye would be interesting. I should be interested to see the applications. How do the Government intend to recruit these housing commissars? Will they have time to do so within a fortnight from Royal Assent?
There have been many changes to the Bill in the House of Lords to impose even greater difficulties whether or not the housing commissioner is to be brought into housing authorities such as my own. There is a new provision in Clause 94

which will have an effect on timing. It says that:
If a member of the authority…whether before or after the appointment of a Housing Commissioner, does any act having reasonable cause to believe that it is likely to impede, mislead or interfere with a Housing Commissioner or any person carrying out the orders or requirements of a Housing Commissioner, in performing those functions he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.
A person could be guilty of an offence before the commissioner is appointed. I do not understand that. What sort of impediment or difficulties does this relate to? What is "reasonable cause" in these circumstances? The situation could arise where a member of an authority could be offending some law which has only just been enacted and which is in a state of total confusion. He could be fined up to £400 for apparently misleading or interfering with the housing commissioner who had not been appointed. How are we to work it all out? What ramifications would arise from the application of Clauses 93 to 95 when housing commissioners had not been appointed? The whole administration of the Bill is confused. As with so many other matters, the best course for the Government is to put it on ice while they get things sorted out.
My hon. Friend's have mentioned the results of Clause 62(4). Incidentally, most housing managers still think of it as Clause 63 as it was only a week or so ago. If they refer to the wrong Clause, they will be even more baffled about the man in Whitehall and the Ulrichs of this world.
The Government cannot brush under the carpet all the complexities that will result. The Bill was bad enough in its original form, but with this subsection the Clause is the closest thing to a wrecking Amendment ever introduced by any Government. The Government have wrecked the administration of their own Bill. We do not know what is to be the relationship of the rent scrutiny boards to decisions by the men in Whitehall. We do not know what criteria are to be used.
Only a few weeks ago, I moved an Amendment asking the Minister to stipulate the criteria on which he would make


decisions under Clause 62(4). He replied that there was no need for such a provision, because the Ministry's letters to authorities would be perfectly clear and the criteria would be stated in the clearest possible language, that the Government would give guidance as a matter of courtesy. What courtesy have the Government shown authorities which have already applied? What nicely defined criteria have they drawn up to help authorities understand the administration of the Bill? It is little wonder that an increasing number of authorities are moving towards non-implementation, an understandable position in view of the fundamental evil of the Bill, its evil principles and the complexity of its administration.
There is another reason why housing authorities ought not to be expected to implement the Government's wishes at a fortnight's notice. If they apply to the Government under Clause 62(4) and that application is still outstanding on 1st October, what do they do? On 1st September, they are supposed to send notices giving tenants a month's notice of an increase in rent, but they will not know what that increase is supposed to be. An application will have been made under Clause 62(4). Are they to make the increase £1 and then have the onerous task of collecting back the difference, or will it be impossible for them to notify tenants by how much the rent is to be increased? If by 1st October the Government say that rents must be increased by £1, it will take another month or five weeks for that to come into force and the housing revenue account will fall into arrears. Would there be a surcharge on the councils for the difference?
What happens where a local authority which submits an application under Clause 62(4) has to notify tenants on 1st September of an increase the amount of which it does not know? The council will be in total confusion. The rents which it should charge will not have been collected on the appropriate day and the revenue account will be in arrears. That is the nightmarish situation that can arise within the time-scale envisaged.
More than half the Welsh housing authorities have taken no action on the

Bill. Many of them are small, and many have a housing manager who is also the public health inspector. He will be administering the rent rebates, he will be in charge of estate management, and he will also have to explain the provisions of the Bill to the tenants. How can we expect such an authority to implement a Bill the administration of which is in such total confusion?
The answer is that many local authorities will not be able to do so and will in principle decide not to implement the Bill. Who can blame them? My own authority will not implement the Bill. It regrets that it has been forced into that situation but it draws its authority from the same well of democratic rights as does the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. The democratically-elected representatives of Merthyr Tydvil have a right to say that they cannot honestly implement the Bill. What will the Government do in the two weeks following the Royal Assent in such a situation?
I notice from the Clauses relating to the housing commissioners that it is the duty of the Secretary of State and not of the local authority to take the appropriate action. Will he take action within a fortnight of the Royal Assent? Will he put in housing commissioners before 1st October? Has he enough time and the administrative capacity to do that? It is possible that the administration of the Department may break down under the strain, as will the administrative relationships between a regional Government Department like the Welsh Office and the housing authorities. The housing division of the Welsh Office has a marvellous working relationship with the Welsh housing authorities; as a result of the impossible timetable imposed by the Bill that relationship will be totally destroyed.
9.45 p.m.
A Government Department has to work in close co-operation with local authorities over the whole area of housing—construction, cost yardsticks, and so on—and there is a lot of give and take. There is much real, informal contact. But, just as with the relationship between the trade unions and Government, there will be total alienation between the Welsh housing authorities and the housing department of the Welsh Office. Because of their proximity, because of the much


closer working relationship that they had managed to achieve, the loss will be all the greater.
The Government seek to impose this Measure upon so many Welsh housing authorities with deep principles and amazingly successful housing records. All this will be destroyed by the absurd decision to impose this Bill and ram it down the throat of the Welsh authorities in such a short time.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I was so anxious to impress the Chair with my capacity to speak briefly on Second Reading that I spoke for only two minutes and that did not leave me enough time to give as cordial a welcome to the Bill as I would have liked. Since the Chair has been so indulgent in this debate, I trust that I may be able to make a few more remarks now which may repair the deficiency.
Hon. Members opposite have called upon the Government to show prudence and to delay the coming into effect of the Bill. I could not help reflecting on the famous saying of William Blake that prudence was a rich ugly old maid, courted by incapacity. We have to recollect that the pace of change in local government has perhaps not been so stretching and extreme as the abilities of the many fine men who take part in local life would have permitted in past years.
I believe that the country will surprise itself when it finds how rapidly it can accustom itself to much more rapid administrative change in local government affairs. I think it was Dr. Johnson who said that when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully. I cannot help congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends for the way they have set such a high rate of striking in getting this Bill away. They are really setting a thrilling and exciting target for local government.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is not with us now to hear my sincere congratulations on his absolutely brilliant opening speech. It was a speech of such hilarity that it would have been entirely out of place if he really now any longer had serious reservations about the Bill. What he gave us was an outstanding parliamentary performance and it showed that he was

using the Bill as a vehicle for his wit rather than for his venom. He took us on a whistle-stop tour from one end of our island to another at breathtaking speed. I could not help wondering whether it would not be more agreeable for hon. Members if, instead of sitting here until two o'clock in the morning to discuss the Bill, we were all to get into char bancs and tour the country and learn from the various local authorities the right hon. Gentleman mentioned how they will tackle housing reform.
In spite of my intervention on Second Reading, which was designed entirely to get myself selected for the Committee, I did not have that pleasure. [Laughter.] I am putting that absolutely sincerely. Housing is one of the most important considerations in the borough which I have the honour to represent and I sincerely wanted to study this Bill, together with other hon. Members, in Committee. I now find that I am not able to follow all the private jokes which hon. Members who served on the Committee have been exchanging.
Before I leave the question of the pace of change which we are imposing on local authorities, may I remind the House of the way in which right hon. and hon. spokesmen for the administration of National Insurance pensions came forward year after year to assure the House how impossible it was to introduce increases in pensions except after months and months of tedious and agonising delay. That has now all changed. I cannot help asking myself whether that may be partly due to the evidence of a small parliamentary delegation which went to Brussels and examined how the administration of pensions was dealt with there.
I had the good fortune to be a member of that delegation. At the same time as we were explaining that it would be months before an increase in National Insurance pensions could be implemented, we learned that in Belgium, provided that those responsible knew the new figures they were to pay by the last week of one month, they were able to introduce the new figures at the end of the first week of the following month. In other words, they needed 10 or 14 days to make the necessary changes. I believe the arguments which we have heard about the impossibility of implementing the Bill


will be seen to melt into nothing when local authorities face the challenge.
We have heard from hon. Members opposite about the increases in rents which will accompany the Bill, but we have not heard much about the benefits which it will bring in the form of housing allowances for tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people who will receive a housing subsidy for the first time. Those people will not thank the Labour Party for its efforts to delay the implementation of this important reform. I am certain that the thousands of people in Kensington who will find themselves eligible for housing allowances will remember the fight which right hon. and hon. Members opposite put up against the Bill.
We have heard something about the inflationary effect of the Bill. It is important to say, in the context of a long programme of social reform, that the Bill as was also shown in the White Paper, introduces new child allowances of 40p, 50p, 60p per week or thereabouts. We welcome that because it gives extra benefit to the people whose families require the biggest outgoings. I have often made the point that when there is an increase in the cost of living it appears in the official tables as an increase in percentage terms, but it is in fact an increase in terms of pence or pounds a week. Whereas a single person suffers once from an increase in the cost of living, a married couple with children may suffer from that same increase three, four or five times over. Therefore, it is progressive legislation which selects the people with families for the biggest benefits.
Over the last 200 years, consciously or unconsciously, legislation has recognised that family men have the biggest burden to bear. When income tax was introduced in 1798 there was built into it a negative child allowance. In the 19th century the cheap food policy was implemented which, obviously, offers the biggest benefit to the man with the largest number of mouths to feed. That policy continued into the 20th century with the food subsidies. There was then the implementation of free education, which is also of benefit to the family and is not of any direct benefit to the majority of single people. Family allowances were

introduced in 1945, a direct cash subsidy based on citizenship and not related to need.
I welcome the basic thinking behind the Bill because it introduces allowances which are not directly related to a fixed concept of the poverty line. It takes us away from the idea of benefits concentrated selectively and absolutely on those in need. We find from examination of the table of weekly rebates and allowances which the Bill will implement that allowances are available even for people with substantial incomes—considerably in excess, for instance, of the average wage.
So, in this social reform, we have broken away from the concept that payment should be concentrated only on those in direst and most absolute need.
I think that the Opposition, who have thrown their weight against the implementation of the Bill, have been making an extremely serious miscalculation. In retrospect they will see that they have been trying to hold up a necessary and important reform which in the end had to come. I am glad that it has come as a result of the Government's efforts, and I cannot wait for the day it begins.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) on using his speech as a vehicle for wit. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on using his speech as a vehicle for a great deal of erudition in a great many affairs. We have heard references to Blake and Dr. Johnson, to the tax laws over the last 200 years and to pensions in other countries. But we have not heard from the hon. Gentleman much about housing, and it is obvious from what he said that he does not know a great deal about the contents of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman represents part of the same borough as I represent. I believe that at the next General Election he will be seeking to represent the part I now represent. I fear that his ignorance of the impact of the Bill will be a handicap to him for many years to come. He gives the Bill a cordial welcome and refers to the benefits which derive from it. When he refers to the rent allowances, he appears wholly to ignore the fact that


they are not available to furnished tenancies and that 35 per cent. of all households in our borough are in furnished premises.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically skating very near the edge of untruth when he says that those in furnished accommodation are not going to benefit. He could not have been attending very closely when my right hon. Friend replied to an Amendment which the hon. Gentleman himself introduced and which I supported. His is not really a very worthy comment for one of the Members for the borough I represent.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I do not quite know on what basis the hon. Gentleman justifies his reference to me as characteristically skating near the edge of untruth. The Bill does not provide forrent allowance to furnished tenancies. If there are to be rent allowance for furnished tenants, they will be from some other source.
The hon. Gentleman gives a cordial welcome to the Bill. I join my colleagues who have urged the severe administrative difficulties which are likely to result from the extremely short time-scale involved as a result of this Amendment. I do so for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friends and because two weeks can indeed be a very long time in politics—not a very original phrase. Three weeks ago there were still many hon. Members opposite pleased and content with the Industrial Relations Act. A very short period has changed their feelings about it. I hope that within a similar short period the Government will reconsider the impact of this Bill on one of the major problems facing the country—the runaway spiral of housing prices.
This Bill will have an exaggerating effect on the rise in house prices. We have seen a very sharp rise in those prices over the last year. I have in front of me figures published by the Nationwide Building Society—

It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on any Amendments moved on Consideration of the Anglesey Marine Terminal Bill [Lords], as amended, on the Motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means relating to the Bill and on any contingent Motion, may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until either Five o'clock or the end of a period of one hour after such Proceedings have been entered upon, whichever is the later; and that the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Contracts of Employment Bill [Lords] and the Land Charges Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—(Mr. Goodhew.)

Orders of the Day — HOUSING FINANCE BILL

Question again proposed. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I have in front of me figures published by the Nationwide Building Society on house prices. During the period from 1965 to 1970 house prices on the one hand and the cost of house building, wages and materials used therein on the other hand, increased almost exactly in line. If we take December 1965, as the base line of 100, we find that by December, 1970, the cost of house building, materials and wages had risen by 31 per cent. and that of house prices by 33 per cent. That position continued until June, 1971, when the two were still approximately in line—140 as compared with 144.
Then we had the White Paper, and immediately following it there was an immense rise in property prices. They rose from 144 in June, 1971, to 161 in December, 1971, and to 189 in June, 1972. That was a rise of 45 points or just over 31 per cent. I do not have the complete figures for the rise in prices of house building, wages and materials for that period, but they had risen by only two points in the first six months—from 140 to 142—and I have no reason to suppose that they rose more than another few points during the subsequent six months. My contention is that the reason for the increase in house prices that we are now experiencing and which has caused immense hardship is not any rise in the cost of wages or materials


going into house building but the increase in the value of the expected return on land. It is land alone that is causing this immense rise and causing the grave hardship that so many families are now suffering.
What determines the price of land? Landis a constant. What determines the price is the price that people expect to have to pay for their homes. It is the price that council tenants will have to pay and that private tenants will have to pay for their accommodation which determines the cost of housing in one sector and also determines the return that the provider of houses expects to get from it. It also determines the rent that someone is willing to pay to get out of the rented market, because he knows that he will have to pay more next year, still more the following year and still more the year after that.
I contend that publication of the White Paper last year and the Bill that followed was directly responsible for the immense increase in house prices that we have experienced over the last year. That rise is producing acute social problems, not merely for young people seeking to buy their first home but affecting people who live in areas such as my area and South Kensington, where property values are rising not just by 30 per cent. but by as much as 50 or 60 per cent. in a year.
In Committee I referred to the fact—it was suggested that I was exaggerating—that Victorian terraced houses in Kensington were being sold for £40,000. The same houses are now being sold for between £45,000 and 48,000. This process is continuing, and it will continue unless the Bill is withdrawn.
Where a family are occupying one floor, the house is being regarded as worth £10,000 per floor. Some families are being squeezed into £5,000-worth of accommodation, and all they have is one bedroom and the use of a bathroom and lavatory on the floor below. The level of rent which will be fixed by the rent officer will be much too high for a working-class family to afford. Immense pressure will be imposed by landlords to get families out of the accommodation.
I am sure the hon. Member for Kensington, South will not dispute that

much hardship is being experienced in North Kensington as a result of the activities of those who are trying to get rid of tenants so that those properties may be resold. Even the Minister will acknowledge that this is happening. However, the Minister brushes these difficulties aside by saying that if these properties are being improved for middle-class occupation and working-class families have to go elsewhere, this is a housing gain. The developments which are causing acute hardship to so many families are a direct result of the sharp rise in property prices, and this is a consequence of the Bill. I trust that even within a short period of delay the Government will think about the subject yet again and will review their decision.
I should like to see a longer delay before the Bill is implemented not only because it will affect the impact of house prices. We must also remember that not only Section 62(5) applications will be considered by the Department but that applications will need to be granted under Clause 20 and Schedule 3 of the Bill, which deal with the removal of the limits on rent allowances and rebates.
As the Bill stands, the maximum rent rebate is £8 and the minimum rent is 40 per cent. of the "fair rent". With the kind of rents that are likely to result in Kensington where properties are valued at £10,000 per floor, a maximum rent allowance of £8 will be totally insufficient to bring these rents within the reach of families on ordinary incomes. It will be essential in many central urban areas for the Minister to use a wide discretion in terms of Clause 20 and Schedule 3.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister has already stated during preliminary discussions that he expects people to be turned out of such expensive accommodation and moved into poorer accommodation?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I was not aware that the Minister was glorying in his expectation of it, and I trust that this is not so. I am saying that this is an inevitable consequence of what is being proposed in this Measure. But I know that the view has been expressed by the leader of the Kensington Council that the poor will have to move out, and that that was said before this Bill was even presented.
Obviously the Bill will make it more likely that the poor will have to move not just out of North Kensington but out of all the central areas of our major cities. With the Bill and the level of expectation of returns on property we are creating a situation where property values are changing so fast that it is a great concession when a landlord continues to allow working-class families to remain occupying premises in city centres, and landlords will not do it if they can help it. We are getting to a situation where the poor will be evicted forcibly by pressure from landlords, by financial pressure and by the absence of adequate rent allowances and rebates, and obliged to move out of central city areas.
This is a consequence of the Bill, and I believe that the immense increase in property values is not just one of the consequences but one of the major purposes of the Bill. It is not to save the £100 million or £150 million in subsidies that we have the Bill. We have it to ensure that property values rise so that the distinction between the two nations is perpetuated, the two nations in this case being those who own property and those who do not, those who have to pay a rent which increases year after year and those who own property the value of which increases year after year.
We have 8 million families who own houses. I am very glad that we do. Those 8 million families have seen the value of their assets go up in money terms by 30 per cent. in the last year. That

is of no benefit to a family owning one house. But it is of immense benefit to someone who owns a great deal of land, a number of houses, or property shares. It is of no benefit to anyone who needs a house in which to live. An increase in property prices of 30 per cent. represents a transfer from those who are paying rent to those who own property. That is a consequence of the Bill, and I believe that it is one of the purposes behind it.
I hope that during the period of further delay that we wish to see the Government will think about this yet again and take steps to ensure that we do not have a further escalation in the rate at which middle-class families are colonising the working-class areas of our cities.
The decontrol provisions in the Bill coupled with the increasing level in council rents will have the effect of drastically increasing property values. We have provisions in the Bill which enable landlords to carry out improvements against the wishes of tenants. We have the automatic provision for decontrol. All these will create differences between the two sections of society. I believe that it is the intention of the Conservative Government to do this. This is the effect of the Bill. I trust that even at this late stage, when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are seeing the consequences of so many of their other policies blowing up in their faces, they will have further thoughts.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) referred to the words of Samuel Johnson to the effect that nothing concentrates the mind of a man who is going to be hanged more than knowing that he is to be hanged in the next hour. "Hanging" is just about how tenants and councils feel about this Bill. Certainly it is opposed by tenants and by the Association of Municipal Corporations. They look upon its provisions with considerable apprehension.
However, concentration of the mind does not necessarily provide the services, the accountancy and the municipal servants necessary to do the job of bringing this very complicated Measure into operation. That is why we are opposed to the Bill being rushed through the House. We believe that the Minister should seriously consider delaying it.
I draw the Minister's attention to an article in the Local Government Chronical of 14th July this year by its financial editor, Mr. George Forster, in which he suggests postponing the operation of the Bill. This is not a political journal; it represents the considered views of local authorities. The article suggests that the operation of the Bill should be postponed for 12 months. It gives two reasons. One is the present economic situation. The article states:
The economic difficulties which have supervened, with the removal from the pound of the strong support given by a fixed parity, the record high level of salary and wage settlements in the public sector, the dangerous inflation, the continuing high level of unemployment, have all clouded the sky and sharpened differences. This is not the atmosphere in which to force through so drastic a measure as the Housing Finance Bill, however justified its provisions on economic and fiscal grounds.
Mr. Forster, whose does not necessarily oppose the provisions of the Bill, points out that many local authorities are saying that now is certainly not the time to do it when the Government are supposed to be fighting inflation.
Secondly, the article points out all the practical difficulties, which are formidable indeed. If a local authority has to give notice of its increases on 1st September, consider what it has to do. First, it has to decide whether to put in an application

for the Minister's consideration under Clause 62(4). I should like to know more about this matter from the Minister. Clause 62(4) does not make it necessary for a local authority to make an application. It is the Minister's job to consider these matters.
Has the Minister examined the accounts and rents of all local authorities? He has not so much time to do that if the Bill is to be effective from 1st September when the rent increases come into force. Has he decided which should be accepted under Clause 62(4)? We should like to know more about this matter. We already know that 50 local authorities have made or are making applications under Clause 62(4).

Mr. James Hill: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Only 34 out of between 1,200 and 1,300 housing authorities have applied.

Mr. Silverman: I am talking about those which have applied or are applying. No doubt there will be many more when the Bill comes into operation. No application can be considered by the Minister until the Bill becomes law.
It is the Minister's job to decide, application or not, whether a local authority should or should not be accepted. Obviously, the local authorities will do their utmost to bring that matter to the Minister's attention. How far has he proceeded with that? Will he be able to complete his consideration before 1st September and be in a position to inform every local authority whether it comes within the provisions of Clause 62(4)?
I know something about the Birmingham correspondence. It is not an application under the Clause, because the Bill is not in operation. I have seen correspondence not between the council and the Minister but between the director of housing and this Mr. Ulrich who has been mentioned. Having examined Clause 50 fairly closely, I find it difficult to understand on what criteria Mr. Ulrich is operating. The definition in Clause 50 hardly comes into the matter at all. To what extent will average wages in an area be considered? To what extent is gross value a predominant factor, and how does Clause 50 comes into the matter


at all? We do not know what the criteria are, even after all the correspondence.
There has been some reference to the fair rents Bill introduced by the Labour Party. There has been some talk about differences in procedure between that Measure and this one, but the main difference between the two is not one of procedure. The object of the Labour Government's Bill was to keep down rents, and to some extent it succeeded, thought not as much as I should have liked. The deliberate object of this Bill is to put up rents. The difference is, therefore, not procedural. The whole object of the operation here is different.
It is true that as a gimmick the Government have used the same sort of formula, but the formula does not seem to matter in the way that it is being operated. Local authorities are entitled to know before 1st September what criteria the Minister will use in operating Clause 62(4) and when he applies Clause 50 in the public sector, because I do not know how the rent scrutiny board would operate in deciding what a fair rent would be in the public sector, where there is no market at all, if there were a balance of supply and demand.
I do not know what that means, and, clearly, neither the Minister nor Mr. Ulrich knows what it means. How can anybody decide the matter in the public sector where there is no question of supply and demand? There is no yardstick to enable anyone to decide what would be a fair rent, or what a fair rent would be likely to be if there were a balance of supply and demand. Nobody has worked that out. Neither the Minister nor his civil servants have worked that out, and, naturally, that creates difficulties in interpreting the Bill. Local authorities are entitled to know what criteria will be adopted.
Ever since the Birmingham correspondence was published that is what local authorities have been trying to find out from the Minister, and so far they have not got very far. Because of the Amendment there will be only a couple of weeks alter the Bill becomes law before the Minister must disclose what the criteria are and decide which councils will be excepted and to what extent they will be excepted under the provisions of Clause

62(4). I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming about what he will do.
Birmingham has been told by the civil servants involved that it will have to put up its rents by an average of 65p. That is all very well, but it still imposes upon the local authority, after the Minister has made his final announcement under the Bill, an obligation to decide how that 65p is to be allocated. Let me explain what I mean.
At present Birmingham City Council does not believe that there should be any increase in its rents. It believes that the present rents are fair, and it advances various arguments for that. The most impressive argument is that there is a surplus in the housing revenue account of £3½ million, and, that being so, there is no need to put up rents. In this respect the Labour Party is not alone, because Sir Francis Griffin agrees with that view. He is on the housing committee, and he says that there should not be an increase at all, which means that the present rents are fair. Mr. Ulrich, however, has decided otherwise but he has not given any clear reasons for his decision.
If the council decides that rents should be increased by an average of 65p, it will then have to decide how that sum is to be allocated between the various kinds of houses. The council owns about 150,000 houses. There are pre-war purpose-built houses, early post-war houses, Parker Morris houses, and flats. The local authority has received no guidance from Mr. Ulrich as to how the 65p is to be divided among the various classes of tenants. The local authority will be faced with the problem of deciding not only which rents shall be increased and which shall not be but whether some shall rise even above the fair rent level. So far we have no guidance from the Minister. There have been vague references to Clause 50 but that is not applicable.
In addition, the introduction of the rebate scheme by 1st October involves a great deal of preparation. The eventual form of the rebate scheme will depend upon the level of rents. It is no good the Minister's saying that local authorities knew that the Bill was to come into operation and should have made preparations. During the discussion on industrial relations earlier we heard a great deal about the rule of


law, but it is an extraordinary constitutional doctrine that people are apparently obliged to begin to implement an Act before it is on the Statute Book, and if they do not do so they are in serious trouble. Apart from the fact that is not a constitutional doctrine, it makes no sense, because no one can say what the final form of the Act will be until it is on the Statute Book. The Bill has already been substantially amended. A local authority which implemented it upon the basis of the original provisions might be in considerable difficulties.
In the time allowed after the Bill becomes an Act it will not be possible for local authorities to do all the necessary work. There will be enormous chaos in town halls, even in those local authorities which desire to obey the law and co-operate with the Government in bringing the law into operation however much they disapprove of it.
It is claimed by some hon. Members opopsite that if the Bill is postponed all the benefits deriving from it will be postponed. I do not think that there are many benefits under the Bill. Rent allowances have been mentioned. Birmingham introduced by a Private Bill a rent allowance scheme which has been in operation for about 20 months. About 250 people benefit out of an estimated total of 60,000 private tenants.
Although we support the principle of rent allowances, we would mislead the public and private tenants if we gave the impression that great numbers of people would get large benefits, and that is leaving aside the question of the inapplicability of the provision to furnished tenancies. The number of people who will benefit under the rent rebate scheme will be very few. For the vast majority it will be a contribution to meet the higher rent they must face. Therefore, I am not unduly disturbed by the fact that if the operation of the Bill is delayed these benefits will be delayed. Council tenants and others are prepared to wait for the benefits.
We believe that the Bill is a mistake and that now is in any event the wrong time to introduce it. There is every reason for delay. Like other hon. Members, I hope that the Minister will have last-minute thoughts. We deplore the way in which the Bill is being rushed through.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am a little sorry that the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is not in his place. He is nothing if not an optimist if he believes that the Bill will be smoothly implemented. I do not imagine that even the Minister believes that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have been better advised to go to the Isles of Scilly, where it will be smoothly implemented since it does not apply there.
The Government and their supporters are deluding themselves and the country not only about that but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) said, about the effect of rent allowances in the private sector. They will be rent allowances on steadily escalating rents. This is the purpose of the Bill. It is a Measure designed to assist the property speculator. It is not designed to assist the poor. The idea of the rent allowance is just another part of the camouflage which the Government are seeking to lay across this scheme and so much of their other legislation, as we heard in the earlier debate today.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that there was no need for delay and that the Bill should be brought in swiftly because of the vast benefits which would accrue to a number of people. That argument, too, was totally exploded by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston.
I should have expected the Minister to welcome further delay. It is not as though the Government have done sufficient research. If the right hon. Gentleman had spent in applying himself to the machinery of the Bill one-tenth of the time he devoted to insulting my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), the country might have been better served. We have had little or nothing constructive from him; yet he has laid into the Opposition with insult after insult in characteristic fashion.
Has the Department done any substantial research into the projected rise in rents? This matter has been raised with the Prime Minister time and again, and at last he was persuaded to say that he would—we do not know when—publish details of the Department's research into this question. We want to know now, not on the last day before


the House rises for the Summer Recess. Presumably, the information is available to the Minister, if he has done his homework. What is the projected rise in rents, taking into account rebated and unrebated rents and the increases which have been made by some local authorities since last April?
Shall we be told tonight? If the Minister has not had time to investigate these matters, is there not every reason for delay? This goes to the root of the Bill. If we cannot judge the financial effect of the Bill, how can it have any credibility with local authorities and the people concerned? How are we to judge the Department's own manoeuvrings in relation to Birmingham, Newcastle, Hammersmith and all the other local authorities? What is the rationale of the Government's thinking on these matters?
The machinery upon which the Bill depends for its effective implementation has just not been prepared. It has not been set up. We have heard nothing from the Under-Secretary of State today to offer us any new thoughts on the matter, for he spoke for only two or three minutes. How many people are to be entitled to rebates? We do not know. What do the Government intend to do about the appalling level of take-up which persists in all our social services today?
The Government say that local authorities must advertise in the way they consider most appropriate in order to get at the people who will be affected by rebates. That is dealt with in Clause 24. Does he consider that local authorities have had enough time to consider the nature of their advertising campaign? Does he consider that they have had enough time to work out the terms of that campaign, when none of the basic facts upon which it must depend has been worked out? No local authority has enough of those essential elements before it which would enable it to conduct a meaningful advertising campaign. No Bill of such enormous implications has been introduced with such inept and inefficient groundwork by any Government. Therefore, it is important that the Government avail themselves of more time. If they do not they will debase still further not only the work of local authorities but our own institution

of Parliament and the law upon which eventually everything must depend.
Local authority after local authority has expressed its grave disquiet about its comprehension of the Bill. That is hardly surprising, because it is clear from the Minister's own contributions that he does not understand the Bill. We have muddle and confusion, which will be catastrophic unless local authorities are given more time.

Mr. Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the point that the Bill requires that each authority shall furnish the statutory particulars of its rebate scheme in writing and in convenient form to each of its tenants? That is a form of advertising which seems to me to be likely to be highly effective. It is different from family income supplement matters and so on, when it is not known to whom one is appealing. In this case, direct notice goes to every tenant.

Mr. Davis: Many local authorities did this to advise furnished tenants of their remedies, however limited, under the Rent Act. Anyone representing a housing stress area in London knows that only a small minority of tenants understand the position, and that Act has been in operation for a number of years. All sorts of tragedies occur because of that. The hon. Gentleman represents Aylesbury, which is not a housing stress area. He knows nothing of the problems that those of us who represent such areas have to face day in and day out. They are tragedies affecting the lives of thousands of our people. In Hackney we have 10.000 families on the housing waiting list. They live in the most appalling conditions, and their lives are blighted as a result. They will not be assisted by the Minister's cavortings about the Bill.
My hon. Friends have pointed out that by 1st October all rents are legally required to go up by £1, unless a council can satisfy the Secretary of State that that would put tenants above fair rent levels and he agrees on a lower provisional rise. Councils have to work this out. There has been no guidance by the Minister. He has failed in his responsibilities not merely to the House—that does not matter—but to those local authorities which are totally dependent on him for that guidance. Local authorities are required to provide notice of rent


increases. It must be served by 1st September. There are local authorities which by next week will not even be functioning effectively. Certainly their elected representatives will not be functioning. They are entitled to a month's holiday, and they will go on holiday. It is unreasonable for the Minister to expect that major political decisions should be made during that time. Yet political decisions must be made if notices of increase are to go out by 1st September. The Minister knows that it cannot be done but he is pretending that it can.
We have heard much about the great benefits that will accrue to so many people as a result of fair rents, and we have effectively dealt with those claims. But which criteria will govern fair rents in the Bill? Is the Minister satisfied with the criteria which the rent scrutiny boards will apply. Who will constitute the rent scrutiny boards? We have speculated about that, and I do not want to dwell on the matter. I hope it will not be a sinecure for a number of Conservative Party loyalists because that would surely bring the law into disrepute, although the Government are quite prepared at times to do that. When are the boards prepared to undertake their work? When will they be ready? All this indicates that the Government have no coherent plan.
There was a very interesting statement by the borough treasurer of Hemel Hempstead as reported in the Sunday Times of 23rd July, 1972. It was contained in a report which read:
Only 274,000 of the tenancies covered by the 1965 Act, less than a quarter of the total, registered 'fair rents', and many of these are not independently assessed by rent officers.
One leading expert on housing finance, Henry Aughton, Borough Treasurer of Hemel Hempstead, says: 'I would not expect that even a tenth of this small number are even remotely comparable to council houses. Yet on this tiny fraction of the housing market it is proposed to erect a structure for five million public sector houses.' 
That man has no axe to grind. He is not a member of the Labour Party, as far as I know. Does the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) suggest that this man has a political axe to grind? I thought I saw the hon. Member nod. I invite him to say if he is asserting that.

Mr. Allason: The borough treasurer of Hemel Hempstead has a remarkable affinity with the arguments of the Labour Party.

Mr. Davis: Is the hon. Member imputing to his own borough treasurer a political prejudice? Is he saying he is a member or a supporter of the Labour Party? I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member to enable him to reply.

Mr. Allason: I have stated that he has a remarkable affinity in his arguments with the arguments of the Labour Party.

Mr. Davis: That is a remarkable statement. The hon. Member is saying that the borough treasurer simply agrees with the criticisms that have been made not only by the Labour Party and others in the House but by Shelter, by the Child Poverty Action Group, and by all sorts of housing associations and independent bodies about the unprepared ness of the Government to deal with the problem and about the political bankruptcy of their proposals.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead is prepared to stigmatise his own borough treasurer because the hon. Member does not like what he says. That is not a very pleasant attitude to adopt.
The burden of our case is that the Government need time not only to put their house in order on this matter but, much more important, to deal with property speculation, about which they are doing nothing. They need time to offer rent allowances and security of tenure to tenants in furnished property. Such matters could still have been dealt with in the Bill, if the Government had not been so determined to press ahead with it with such rapidity. They need time to offer guidance to local authorities on how to deal with the amazing increase in land prices. Any responsible Government would need time to do something about the private rented sector.
Virtually the whole Labour Party recognises that in the stress areas in London and other cities private landlordism has failed. It cannot answer the crying need of the thousands of tenants of the inner London boroughs. It needs to be replaced, and any responsible Government would be thinking in terms of a substantial housing Bill to bring about the rapid municipalisation of all rented property.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on his argument and I support him in the sense that we both have areas in the London Borough of Hackney. I have frequently said that nothing in the Bill will help the homeless families in Hackney, or do anything to aid housing there.
My hon. Friends have demanded this evening, as they have often demanded, to be told how rents are to be set. In my part of Hackney rents will be set by three groups of people. Two of the groups have no relationship with the area. Those two are the Greater London Council and the City Corporation. Both are classified as local authorities able to set what they regard as fair rents. The third group is the London Borough of Hackney, which will also have a duty to set a fair rent, or rather an economic rent.
The Minister must explain how these three authorities can come together to determine what they regard as an economic rent for the area, for we have no houses in private occupation in the area with which to make a comparison. The only houses in private occupation are awaiting slum clearance and those owned by housing associations such as the Peabody Trust, the Sutton Buildings and the Guinness Buildings, built in about 1911.
I am anxious to know how rents are to be set. I know how the City Corporation will decide. Its members have never seen the property in my area. It takes along time to get repairs done on behalf of tenants, and members of the City Corporation are too busy making money in the City to bother about people in my area who have to resort to the social services of Hackney rather than be provided for in the City of London. Members of the City Corporation will try to push up the economic rents as high as they will go, with no relevance to anything in particular.
The Greater London Council has been Tory-controlled for a long time; how will it set about fixing rents? It is already charging £3 a week for a two-bedroom flat with a bath in the kitchen. It is true that there is a board over the bath so that it may be used as a dining table

when not being used as a bath. But that great Tory bastion still charges£3 a week for that sort of property and regards that rent as a reasonable standard. The only remotely comparable places are the scruffy places that are to be pulled down under slum clearance.
The Minister ought to tell us how he is asking authorities to set rents. It is a nonsense to say that authorities are to take account of the age and character of the house and so on. That is done when assessing gross value, and I have been rowing with his Department for eight years about the absurdities of differences of rateable value in Islington and parts of Hackney. The area is so close to the City that rateable values have to tail off gradually, and so the rateable values of council properties in my areas are very high, much higher than those of people living further down the borough in a desirable maison with four bedrooms and a garden front and back. A council flat with two bedrooms in my area has a higher rateable value than that. It is important that the people in my area should understand how the Minister proposes to set economic rents.
The Minister shook his head when I intervened and suggested why the cut-off was included. It was originally £6 for London and £4 for the provinces—

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raison rose—

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has intervened many times. He has no knowledge of these things, so perhaps he will forgive me if I do not give way. After pressure, the Minister increased the cut-off to £6 in the provinces and £8 in London. The reason he gave for the cut-off was that it was unreasonable for tenants to occupy expensive accommodation at other people's expense. He talks about people being in possession of documents they should not have, but he knows that is what he said. He knows that the cut-off means that councils must turn out tenants who are in receipt of rebates of £8 or more. Let him honourably say that is what he has in mind, instead of shaking his head to imply that is not what he means or what he said. He not only said it but put it in writing. He expects local authorities to have pressure boys forcing people into cheaper accommodation so that the authorities will not have to pay the high rebates he sets.
I have frequently asked the Minister to define what is meant by "reckonable expenditure". It is not sufficient to say in Clause 4(11) that it means what the Minister wants it to mean at a particular time. That is gobbledegook, and he knows it. He should tell us what he means by "reckonable expenditure"; all else flows from that. His hon. Friends talk about the vast opportunity there will be for people to have subsidies, but the whole subsidy system depends on reckonable expenditure.
If the Minister reduces the size of reckonable expenditure, as he can, to a small amount, within a short period every local authority will be in surplus, and 50 per cent. of that surplus will come to him. Long before the Bill was introduced I asked the Minister to tell us what he meant by reckonable expenditure, and this he has wilfully refused to do. If he again refuses to answer this question tonight, I must assume that he intends to reduce reckonable expenditure to the lowest possible figure to ensure that the local authority will be in surplus.
The success of the Bill depends on the people who will have to implement it. Every local authority association in the country is against the Bill. The Association of Municipal Corporations has written to me saying that the Minister has been informed that a resolution was passed by the association asking him to withdraw the Bill in its entirety. This is the local authority association representing every local authority in England and Wales. How can the right hon. Gentleman ask local authorities to implement a Bill when every man jack of them is against it? It is no good the Minister saying that that is 20th July, 1972; that it is Labour-controlled. When it was Tory-controlled in 1971 it was still saying the same, that it was a bad Bill. Even in the consultative stage it was telling the Government that they were trying to do too much too quickly.
I am urged by the AMC to ask the Minister, at this late hour, to listen to the local authorities and not pursue this Bill. It makes a cogent case, pointing out that it will be impossible for authorities to deal with the Bill and handle local government reform at the same time or deal with water and sewerage reorganisation. There is a vast

amount of reorganisation involving the membership of local authorities. In addition, they will have to attempt to set and justify economic rents and all the other things outlined here. This is a disgraceful Bill; it is the worst possible Bill affecting local government. The right hon. Gentleman must know only too well that a Bill of this nature can only divorce those responsible for local government from the centre.
We keep asking the Minister to tell us how the rent scrutiny boards will be made up, but he wilfully refuses to do so. I believe he knows. I have little doubt but that if this Bill becomes law by the first week in August we shall have the names of the first rent scrutiny board before the end of that month. If rumour is true I could offer a couple of names that are being sounded out. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House how it is that he is sounding people out about this job, yet he will not tell the House who they are? We are entitled to know whether they have the judgment and perspicacity which he claims the boards will have. It is up to the House to make a judgment, not for him to make the pretence that he has not thought about this yet and, as soon as we go into recess, announce all these things—what he means by reckonable expenditure, rent scrutiny boards and who these faceless men are to be. Let him do it this evening. He must know.
An hon. Friend talked about the increase in rents from April and said that under Clause 62(4) authorities could make application, saying that they had already spent the money. The Minister was very cunning. Some of us like to see any Government standing by a certain standard of honesty. What he was not able to do was insist that the 50p in April was part of the rent towards the fair rent. What he has to do is say that when an authority put on the increase of rent, it would have to call it an increase in basic rent. Therefore, after October any increase will be an increase in rent towards fair rents. Local authority councillors are getting fed up with this sort of nonsense. It is dishonest.
This is a bad Bill. It is of no real help to housing, certainly not in the Borough of Hackney, and I support my colleagues in hoping that we shall have it withdrawn.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Freeson: When this Bill was first announced, a long time ago, last year, following the preliminary announcement in 1970 that it was on the way, it was welcomed, so far as I can recall, wholeheartedly. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the Government Chief Whip wishes to intervene in the debate.
As I was saying, with deference to the Government Chief Whip, when this Bill was published a long time ago, I recall that the whole of the Press, including the specialist Press in local government, welcomed it, virtually without reserve: the Guardian, The Times, the Sunday Times and all the other newspapers.
As time has gone on and the Bill has gone through its various stages, the mood has changed somewhat. Various editorials, feature articles and reports have appeared at least bringing into question the wholehearted welcome which some newspapers gave the Measure when it was first published.
The most recent description which we have had from a newspaper which had supported the Measure when it was introduced last year was by the Sunday Times last week, which had a heading on an editorial on the subject: "Housing sham". That is what we have; it is a sham reform.
During the wide-ranging debate which we have been allowed on this Amendment—and we are speaking basically of Amendment No. 102 dealing with the question of the timetable in a rather narrow way—it has been argued by most spokesmen from the Government side that to delay the Measure, as has been argued by the Opposition and by people outside the Chamber, would be to delay a number of worthwhile reforms included in the Bill.
For the most part the changes in the subsidy system are inadequate and far too unnecessarily complicated. Much was made, for example, of the slum clearance subsidy. This will turn out to be, for most local authorities, a sham reform, One or two, which I can name if necessary, will benefit on purely fortuitous grounds as a result of land and property purchases over a number of years, but the majority will not have slum clearance benefit by this Measure of more than a few thousand pounds. I know, for

intance, of no London borough which can say that it will benefit by more than a few thousand pounds, when millions require to be spent.
Liverpool is the most notable authority which this subsidy will assist.
Similarly with other subsidy reforms: they are inadequate and unnecessarily complicated.
Apart from this, it has been overlooked by hon. Members opposite who have so argued that even if those aspects of the Bill to which they have referred, excluding reference to rent policy changes which are the central feature of the Bill, had been acceptable reforms and perfect measures of improvement of housing subsidy, rent rebates and rent allowances, there is a section of the Bill, not before us, which was introduced by the Government in the Lords in a most obscure fashion. This gives the most wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State to defer whatever provisions in the Act he so chooses, concerning any dwellings in any housing revenue account. This was Clause 105. It would be possible for the Government to accept our arguments without affecting by one iota the other measures incorporated in the Bill, whether they be valid reforms accepted by both sides or not—and, clearly, they are not accepted by us. But even if we did accept them it would be possible for the Government to use Clause 105 to defer the operation of automatic progression to the so-called fair rents, which is the main point at issue.
Future rent policy is the central aspect. We have objected to the automatic rents charges, to the confusion over the criteria to be adopted by local authorities in fixing so-called fair rents, to the timetable, and to the inflationary impact of the rent policy central to the Bill. The Labour Party is not alone in its criticisms. They have been voiced also by the local authority associations, by local government officers and professional associations and by the CBI. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell us of any professional organisation concerned with local government which has done other than question and criticise this central aspect of the Bill.
We have come a long way since 1970 when the first announcement was made of impending reform and the saving of £200


million of Government money on the subsidy by 1974–75. We have come a long way since the Bill was introduced—indeed, a long way since Third Reading in this House. As the Sunday Times has said, the Government have decided that the form of the Bill must be maintained but its contents and practice changed.
The Government have changed their mind for a variety of reasons, partly because of our political campaigning, partly because of the objections raised by the local authority associations and professional bodies, partly because of the inflationary situation, partly because of the pressure of Conservatives in local government and partly because inside the Ministry it was never very clear what precisely the Government meant by "fair rents". In Committee we attempted to define the procedure and criteria for the local authorities but failed to get answers.
What are the criteria of the Department? I have read what I can of the letters sent out. In one or two instances I have read the letters in full, and in other cases I have read the essential elements of letters that have been published or to which I have had access. I tell hon. Members on both sides of the House that in my view a criterion is being used by the administrators in the Department that was not even mentioned in Committee. Those who have read the Committee proceedings will recall the detailed arguments and debates that we had about different kinds of criteria that the Labour Party thought should be used to assess rents in the public sector. Each criterion was rejected by the Government. We went on to probe, question and challenge the Government to define more closely what they meant by fair rents in the public sector.
One thing became clear; it was argued that local authorities should fix rents by selecting typical rents of equivalent properties in the private sector and putting alongside them rents in the public sector, then putting them into line. When we raised the question of using gross values it was said, "Well, in some circumstances, perhaps, but it is marginal; we could do this much more effectively and properly by consulting the rent officers and getting lists of rents." I do not think that I have misrepresented the position.
What is the most significant element coming from the letters sent out to the authorities which have made submissions under Clause 62(4)? It is a rather slick exercise. It could be argued that it is in line with the principle of comparability, but in practice it is not. In practice, when the Department receives these applications it considers the number of registered rents irrespective of the age of the property. It takes the latest number of properties registered in 1971, takes into account the relationship between those rents and the gross rateable values listed and says "The relationship is twice the gross value"—or 2·5 times the gross value—"That is the multiplying factor to be used, and that is the way in which you should compare your rents."
It does not say "Take the cash figures and put the rents alongside them": it merely says "Take as the multiplier gross values which have no direct relevance to the rents of local dwellings that are at issue." That is underlined by the fact that there is no singling out of equivalent properties—namely, those properties built in the private sector since 1919—because that is where we must compare the private sector with local authority housing. Few local authority houses were provided before 1919, and most of those that were were bought on the market, although a few were inherited by the old Charity Trust.
Why are not they being singled out? The Prime Minister told us that information would be placed in the Library giving future projections, following certain studies. Since last November I have been trying, week by week, through the Library, to get lists of registered rents for post-1919 dwellings, region by region and borough by borough, and to this date the Library has not been able to get this information from the Department, because the appropriate officials say that it is not available—at least on the scale for which I have been asking; there are merely some examples here and there.
One of my hon. Friends asked what research had been carried out by the Department. It does not even have comprehensive information of registered rents in the private sector nine months after the event, never mind before it published the Bill; never mind before it published the White Paper seeking to


establish this policy. The Department has not got the information. I checked in the Library today. Have the Department given up trying to get this information? Either somebody is misinforming the Library or the information is not available. I do not believe that the civil servants who have been contacted by the House of Commons Library have been misrepresenting the position or not telling the truth. Therefore, I must assume that the information is not available to be analysedin the Department. Yet the Department is telling local authorities throughout the country to use this information, which is not available, to fix their rents. It is because the information is not available as it should be that the Department, on the applications which are being received, is having to do a little sidestep and use a somewhat different procedure from that indicated in Committee. It is using a criterion, a method, to decide upon these applications which was not mentioned by any Minister in Committee.
11.15 p.m.
I challenge the Minister to bring clarity not only to us in this Chamber but to local authorities. What is the procedure to be adopted by local authorities? What is the procedure being, or to be, adopted by the Department in deciding on these applications? From my reading of these letters, the Department is ignoring Clause 50 even as it stands. Whatever our criticism of the Bill, the Department is ignoring Clause 50 which presumes to lay down the definition of fair rents.

Mr. Rowlands: Does the Minister approve these letters before they go out?

Mr. Freeson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question, too. We shall be putting a number of questions to him, because this is our last opportunity on the Floor of the House to try to get clarity not only for our benefit but for that of local authorities throughout the country. Does the Minister see these letters? Does he see the assessments which are made prior to the letters going out? Is the criterion used in these letters of doing a multiplier of gross values in the private sector for registered rents as a basis for rent fixing in the public sector acceptable, and will the rent scrutiny boards use it? If

the right hon. Gentleman says that it is, then I come back to the point that this is to ignore the terms of Clause 50, that
regard shall be had…to all circumstances (other than personal circumstances)
in determining a fair rent for a dwelling.
I will not weary the House—there is not time, because of other matters we wish to discuss—by quoting from articles appearing in independent quarters on this matter. I trust that the Minister and the civil servants who are concerned with the Bill have read the article by Frank Othick in the latest issue of Local Government Review of 1st July—not a polemical article—which is headed,
Valuation—not guesswork in fixing fair rents for council dwellings.
Throughout the whole article, but more particularly in column 2, Mr. Othick discusses the factors that a local authority should use in arriving at what it considers to be fair rents. I see no reference whatsoever in the correspondence that has been sent from the Department to the local authorities which have made applications under Clause 62(4) to any of the methods he suggests. This man is highly respected, probably pre-eminent, in the valuation world. Are the views of this professional man to be ignored?
I could quote other articles which have appeared. George Forster's article in the Local Government Chronicle was quoted. Henry Aughton has also been quoted. They put forward ways in which one should seek to get clarity in this area which has not been forthcoming from the Department. I think the Government knew what they were doing when they first put forward these proposals in the Bill months ago. That is why they have been fudging and shuffing on it in recent months and weeks.
On a number of appropriate occasions the Leader of the Opposition has asked the Prime Minister what the impact of the Bill would be, taking account of rent rebates and other provisions in it, in terms of a percentage increase in rents throughout the country, bearing in mind in particular the CBI policy, which the Government have endorsed in pretty militant terms in certain of the speeches of the Prime Minister referred to by my right hon. Friend. The Prime Minister has not been forthcoming, for the simple


reason that the Department has not attempted any kind of projection. It has not done so, but others have.
I realise that these figures are limited, but they are the only figures which the Department has put to the public of cases which have been submitted and been approved either in whole or in part under Clause 62(4). They show average increases of 12½ per cent. to 15 per cent. It is no use the Minister laughing. Would he care to check the papers in the Department showing the increases proposed by his officers for Brent? They show an average increase of 12½ per cent., and the other figures show similar increases.
The fact that there are rent rebates is neither here nor there, because the rebates are not subsidies from the housing revenue account. They are subsidies to the general rate fund. We are talking about rent levels. The vast majority of local authorities have not put in applications under Clause 62(4) for less than a £1 increase or for less than 50p next year. I am speaking moderately when I say there will be increases of 12½ per cent. to 15 per cent. for local authority dwellings throughout the country.
If the Minister does not agree with that assessment, will he please arrange, as the Prime Minister undertook to do this afternoon, to publish in the Library, or, better still, in Hansard, the projections by the Department of what rent increases will be—region by region rather than as a national overall percentage—at the start of the operation of the Bill and by the time it becomes fully operative within the next three or four years?
It is no use the Minister saying that the information is not available, because time and again in Committee—

Mr. Eyre: Was the hon. Gentleman's estimate for Brent over a period of three years?

Mr. Freeson: No. That is for the rent scrutiny board to decide. I base my case on the figures provisionally approved by the Department of Clause 62(4) applications. I realise that they will vary from one estate to another, and from one part of the borough to another, but this is an average of 55p. on an average overall rent of £4 to £4.40. In Hammersmith, with an average rent of £4, the increase will be 75p. Birming-

ham, with a £3 million surplus, is to have a 65p increase on what I believe is an average rent of £3 a week. What kind of percentage is that?
Am I still being laughed at by the Minister? Would he care to work out the percentages on the two or three figures that I have given? Never mind the hundreds of people who will not get a reduction in the automatic increase in October because there is no question of an application being considered for them or of a direction being considered by the Department under Clause 62(4). I hope that the Minister will not be too quick to laugh again. If he thinks that my figures are wrong, let him publish his own.
In Committee the right hon. Gentleman challenged our use of the Department's original figures of rent increases. There was the famous purloined document, which was published in goodness knows how many journals. The right hon. Gentleman said that the figures were out of date and that he had up-dated information. Can we for the last time with some hope of success ask the Minister to publish the up-dated information in the Official Report in accordance with the undertaking the Prime Minister gave today?
Our objection has been twofold. It has been to the requirement, notwithstanding the applications which have been considered under Clause 62(4), for automatic rent increases of either £1 or 50p this year, next year and the year after that, varying from one authority to another. Our objection has been also to the timetable and to the undue interference with local government.
In Committee we argued that we do not stand by ourselves in our opposition to the Bill. There is not one association which does not agree with our criticism of the timetable. None of the local government associations and none of the professional associations is in agreement with the Government. The Government will not accept any commitment to the views put forward in the Amendment. However, the matter does not end with the Amendment. When the Bill becomes law, there is the obscurely introduced Clause 105, which gives the Minister widespread powers to do what he wishes with any provisions in the Bill in regard to any local authority dwelling. We hope


to have time to discuss this later in our proceedings.
Even when the Bill becomes law, it is possible for the Government to take account of the strongly held views being put to him, not just by the Opposition, but by people in local government throughout the country who have no party point of view to advance but who are united in asking the Government to defer the operation of the automatic rent increases and of the rent assessment procedures, giving time for further examination and a definition of what an assessment of fair rents should be. There is time for the Government to change their minds and to make clarity central to their statements instead of confusion, fudge and mess and a sham, such as the Sunday Times described the Bill over the weekend.

Mr. Amery: The debate has, naturally, ranged wide, as was to be expected in what is, perhaps, the final major discussion on the Bill before it becomes law.
I will deal, first, with the criticism of Lords Amendment No. 102 and of the timing we have proposed. The Amendment brings into force those parts of the Bill which relate to local authorities two weeks after enactment. If precedent be a guide, I say at once that so short a delay is by no means unprecedented. It is common for an Act to come into force one month after Royal Assent. There are many cases of this—examples are the Countryside Act, 1968, the Rent Act, 1968, and the Housing Act, 1969. Some Acts come into force on a day appointed by the Minister concerned, under a commencement order or orders. This was the case with the Transport Act, 1968. Substantial parts of this Act, which was passed on 29th October, 1968, were brought into force on 18th November, 1968, barely a fortnight later—

Mr. George Cunningham: That is three weeks.

Mr. Amery: —by a commencement order made on 14th November. The Prices and Incomes, Act which was enacted on 11th December, 1969, came into force on 1st January, 1970, notwithstanding the intervening Christmas holiday.

Mr. Cunningham: That Act did not involve all this work.

Mr. Amery: I am saying that there is is nothing particularly unprecedented about implementing an Act of considerable importance after a fairly short period.
11.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) says that two weeks is a long time in politics, and I agree; and I know the source of his quotation. But in considering the Amendment we must first ask ourselves, regardless of our views on the merits or demerits of the Bill, whether bringing forward the date of implementation helps or hinders the local authorities in the discharge of their duties.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) said, if I understood him aright, that it was despicable to expect local authorities to make preparations ahead of enactment. But local authorities, through their associations, have been very closely following the progress of the Housing Finance Bill through Parliament. The Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants has issued a number of explanatory documents as we have been going ahead. It has kept local authorities fully alive to what has been going on. My own daily contacts with local authorities suggest that they are well aware of the action that they will be required to take if and when the Bill becomes law. Indeed, inquiries received in our Department show that most authorities, including a good many which do not entirely agree with its principle, are already preparing to implement the Bill.
Any local authorities that are uncertain whether they could obtain a direction about rent increases under Clause 62(4) have for months been in a position to seek an informal indication from the Department. A number of authorities have sought and received such an indication. Some 40 authorities have written asking for an indication. Some 17 have already been given the requisite information, and others are being considered, and as soon as we can we shall be replying to them.

Mr. Leonard: The Minister will know that under the Bill it is not incumbent on a local authority to make an application to the Minister but that it is a question of the Minister using his own judgment.


The right hon. Gentleman says that there have been 40 applications. Can he say in how many local authority areas he has considered making an order under the Clause irrespective of the fact that the local authority had not applied? In particular, I should like to ask him why the GLC, the levels of whose rents are higher than those of London boroughs which have made an application, has refused to make an application.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands the situation. It is a duty under the Bill for the local authority to propose a fair rent—

Mr. Leonard: Where?

Mr. Amery: It will be the duty of the local authority to propose the fair rent. A difficulty arises in the sense that the rent scrutiny boards are not constituted until the Bill becomes law, and so cannot be expected for some months to take decisions. Therefore, if a local authority considers that it is close to a fair rent it approaches us for a provisional opinion before the rent scrutiny board can give a decisive opinion one way or the other. This is where we come in—

Mr. Crosland: This is an obvious and very important point, and there must be a misunderstanding. We are discussing Clause 62(4), and the very relevant point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) is that under the Clause it does not depend on the local authorities to make an application but depends on the Minister's decision. My hon. Friend was therefore asking why the right hon. Gentleman had not decided to direct the GLC. What is said is that if it appears to the Secretary of State that the amount of any increase would bring the authority above the ceiling there is an application by the local authority. My hon. Friend asks how many times it has appeared to the Secretary of State that the Clause comes into play, apart from his having been written to by local authorities.

Mr. Amery: In the context of the Bill, I think it is perfectly clear that we would not take the initiative in proposing—[Interruption]—unless there was an application from the local authority.

Mr. Rowlands: "If it appears".

Mr. Amery: Only the local authority has the information. If the local authority makes it apparent to us that there is a requirement for a direction, we shall of course consider it, as we have been doing. It is not possible for us, however, without the local authority's advice and opinion, to give a direction of this sort. Indeed, it would probably be improper for us to do so.

Mr. Crosland: May I put one more question to the Minister? If he is now interpreting the Clause as saying that an application must always come first from the local authority to the Minister and not the other way round, why on earth was not the Bill so drafted?

Mr. Amery: I think the implication of the Bill is perfectly clear because it sets out categorically that it is for the local authority to propose—[Hon. Members: "No, it does not."]—a rent and for the rent scrutiny board either to accept it or disallow it. But in the period before the rent scrutiny board comes into operation—[An Hon. Member: "He does not understand it."]—the Department is prepared to give a provisional opinion, always subject, of course, to the final determination by the rent scrutiny board subsequent to receiving an application from the local authority. [Interruption.] This is implied in the whole character of the Bill.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Amery: I do not see how the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) could expect us to give an opinion on what was or was not a fair rent or to expect the rent scrutiny board to do so.

Mr. Leonard: Read the Bill.

Mr. Amery: Of course, in theory it would be possible for us—[Laughter.]

Mr. Freeson: In law?

Mr. Amery: —to give a direction without an application, but I do not see how we could put the necessary information before those who have to make the judgment unless the local authority had first supplied the information. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman could think that we possibly could.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Amery: No. I think I have given way enough on that aspect.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Amery: It seems to me perfectly clear that it is not practical for the Department of the Environment—[Hon. Members: "What about the tenants?"]—or the Welsh Office to give an opinion about what should be a fair rent except on the basis of information supplied by the local authority, who alone is in a responsible position to give that opinion.

Mr. Rowlands: What about the tenants?

Mr. Amery: I say "the local authority", the elected local authority is the only body in a position to make recommendations to the Department of the Environment—

Mr. Rowlands: The tenants' association.

Mr. Amery: —and it is on that information and on that alone, that we could form an opinion.

Mr. Crosland: It is extremely important for local government that this should be cleared up. The Minister has said that, in effect, only the local authority could make an application under Clause 62(4), but it says nothing of the sort. Why is it not possible for an opposition group, for example on the Greater London Council, or a tenants' organisation, as my hon. Friend suggests, to write to the Minister and say "It appears to us under Clause 62(4) that more than 2 per cent. of rents will be brought above the ceiling of £1 a year. We hope that it will 'appear' to you"—using the word of the subsection—"Will you kindly tell us whether it does appear to you?"

Mr. Amery: Any group is free to make representations to us—the right hon. Gentleman could make them—but I think it fair to say that the ones which we should regard as authoritative would be those coming from the elected local authority. [Interruption.] I judge them as

elected, whichever party it be, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should have too much cause for complaint on that score at the present time
The argument which I was trying to develop is that a number of authorities, in spite of the information already available to them, are still waiting, quite naturally, for the Bill to become law. In these circumstances, I submit that the sooner the Bill comes into force the longer will authorities have to discharge the duties which they are required to discharge by 1st October. To bring forward the coming into force of the Bill can thus only help the local authorities.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) was a little worried, I think, about his chairman's holiday. There was a time when the House of Lords was embarrassed about rising later than 12th August. That does not happen nowadays. We have moved on, and perhaps chairmen of local authorities should have the same generous perspective which is now adopted in the other place.

Mr. George Cunningham: A disgraceful thing to say about people who give so much of their time.

Mr. Amery: I was asked by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) to define "reckonable expenditure." For the purpose of rising cost subsidy, this is any expenditure debited to the housing revenue account which is determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with methods and principles settled after consultation with the local authority associations. One example of reckonable expenditure is expenditure within the housing cost yardstick.
The Opposition wish to postpone the enactment of the Bill, I understand, by about 12 months. I see the logic of their argument. They dislike the Bill. They would wish to repeal it—they have said so—and, if they cannot defeat it now, they would like to postpone it. I should be the last to underrate the strength of feeling against the Bill among right hon. and hon. Members opposite and their supporters in the country. Housing is a basic issue, particularly in this country, where the family is the basic unit of society, and it cannot be taken out of politics, although there have been moments in the long


watches of the Committee when I could dearly have wished that it might be.
Yet, despite our heated debates on the subject—we have had a number over the last 12 months—I venture to suggest that there is more common ground between us than many outside observers would recognise or than we ourselves would readily admit. I think that there is a general consensus oncertain points, though not on all. The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) accepted, although he did not think it went anything like far enough, that the slum clearance subsidy is a step forward for certain authorities. Liverpool, I understand, will have about £1 million more out of it. The hon. Gentleman himself mentioned Liverpool. Others will get more, where there are major slum clearance problems, just as they will out of the rising cost subsidy.
Until now, local authorities have not been able to get any subsidy for slum clearance as such. They have been able to have a subsidy only where they built council houses on the site which was cleared. Now they have a new incentive. They can clear without having to raise rents, and if clearance leads to a deficit they know that three-quarters of their deficit will be met by the Exchequer. That was not the case before. The situation is exactly the same with regard to the rising cost subsidy.

11.45 p.m.

But this is why I have said more than once—and I have been taken to task for it once or twice by the Opposition—that there is no reason, given this new subsidy, why local authorities should not clear our slums within a decade from now. All the latest figures seem to bear out this contention. The 1971 survey shows that 700,000 slums still exist in our potential clearance areas and a further 400,000 outside them. We are now clearing at the rate of 70,000 a year, and have been doing so for the past three or four years. We do not have to gomuch over a clearance rate of 100,000 a year to clear the lot within 10 years. There is a further consideration, that the decontrol of the privately rented sector should go quite a long way to prevent what are still fit houses from becoming slums.

Mr. Frank Allaun: But will the right hon. Gentleman admit that this slum clearance subsidy is a very poor substitute for the 4 per cent. loans which local authorities are getting now? They will be worse off, not better off, and, therefore, less able to rehouse people from the slums than they were before.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong about that. Not only does the slum clearance subsidy make clearance much easier but the rising cost subsidy means that there is no longer any financial obstacle not only to tackling the problems of overcrowding and homelessness, which are very important and close to the hon. Gentleman's heart, but also to rehousing those displaced by slum clearance. There is still a problem of land, but money is no longer an obstacle. I do not believe many Opposition Members would quarrel in principle or in detail with the slum clearance or the rising cost subsidy.
The Bill also enables housing associations to play a much bigger part in providing rented accommodation. This will be welcomed by most hon. Members. I recognise that some housing associations fear that the rising costs of building may make it difficult for them to undertake new building schemes, because cost rents may rise faster than fair rents. But the new building subsidy under the Bill will meet 100 per cent. of any deficit for the first three years and up to 90 per cent. of the deficit for the next seven years. Of course, there is still the problem of how to find the 10 per cent. still remaining. That is why I have urged housing associations to merge into larger units or to co-operate more closely.
I turn now to the human side; not the bricks and mortar but people. Here again there is a wide measure of agreement. The Labour Government exhorted local authorities to introduce rebates, but they provided no subsidy for them. The Bill obliges local authorities to provide a rebate and provides a subsidy, a subsidy more generous in the public sector than has existed before. More significant still, perhaps, in the private sector we have introduced an allowance where there has never been one before outside Birmingham. The right hon. Member for Grimsby at earlier stages in our discussions has


acknowledged the importance of this. It means that no tenant need be homeless or live in overcrowded conditions or be badly housed for lack of cash. The Bill enables him to afford to live in a decent home. If he can afford nothing, his rent will be nothing. I do not think Keir Hardie would have dissented from that. I doubt whether many Opposition hon. Members would disagree that at any rate what we are doing for rent rebates and rent allowances is a good thing. Some might wish that we had gone further still. Some may regret that they did not do it themselves when they had the chance.
I accept at once that, as the hon. Member for Kensington, North said, we have left a gap in the Bill where tenants of furnished property are concerned. We are in discussion with the local authority associations about this. I can report that the discussions are going well, and I shall report in detail as soon as I can.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that rent allowances to tenants of furnished property will be available at the same time as the other increases will come into effect and when the other rent allowances become available?

Mr. Amery: I have already said that I do not think it will be possible to introduce any scheme for these tenants, assuming we can settle on a scheme, before Easter. The rebate scheme comes into force on 1st October and the allowance scheme for tenants in unfurnished private accommodation on 1st January. We do not believe that local authorities can be asked to undertake a furnished sector allowance before about Easter. I cannot add to that at the moment because I have not yet received the final reports of the discussions with the local authority associations.
There is one other point concerning allowances. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the danger of inflation contained in the Bill. In one respect at least the Bill is positively disinflationary. One of the big difficulties in wage negotiations is how to satisfy the very reasonable claims of lower-paid workers without increasing the whole structure and without interfering with long-established differentials. The rebates and allowances mean that hundreds of thousands of

lower-paid workers will have little or no increase in their rents.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister now give a categorical assurance that the net increase in rents will be no more than the 5 per cent. level to which the CB1 has agreed?

Mr. Amery: I am sorry I gave way. I am coming to that. In many cases tenants will have a reduction in their rents, which will be more helpful to them.
No one will disagree with what I have said about slum clearance, the rising cost subsidy and rebates or allowances. All these things are a considerable step forward, and I would not want them to be postponed for 12 months. There are many hon. Members on the Opposition side who feel that these undoubted improvements are too dearly bought, that the country will be paying too much for them by the rent increases also proposed in the Bill. It may be that there is a genuine difference of opinion between us here. If there is, it has been greatly magnified by misunderstanding. A number of hon. Members and their supporters have given the impression in the heat of debate or in the local elections that every council tenant will pay £1 a week more in rent from next October. It is not so. About one council tenant in five will pay as much as £1 a week.
I do not believe that hon. Members have understood, so I shall give a breakdown. They will be much less critical if they understand the point. There are 4·8 million council tenants in England and Wales. More than 2 million of them have already had their rents increased by 50p in April and will face no further increase until next April, when the average increase can be at most 50p and if they have already reached the fair rent level, or are near it, the rise will be less. Of the remaining 2¾ million, ¾ million are not personally affected because they receive supplementary benefit, and that aspect of their housing expenditure is catered for. Half a million will qualify for rebates and will, therefore, certainly pay less than £1, and in many cases a good deal less. A further ½ million will pay less than £1 increase, in many cases substantially less, either because the authority has had a direction under Clause 62(4), the Newcastle Clause,


or because, as in the case of the GLC, it has already had an increase in rents in the second half of 1971–72. This leaves only about one council tenant in five paying as much as £1 a week increase in October.

Mr. McBride: The right hon. Gentleman refers to allegations about increases in rent. Swansea Council sees no reason to increase rents in the present fiscal year, or in the next fiscal year, circumstances being what they were before the Bill. Is there any valid reason why rents in Swansea should be increased when the council has decided—and I completely agree—that the present level of rents is fair? What says the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Amery: I was elsewhere in the building at the time, but I saw that the hon. Gentleman made a fairly lengthy speech. He has asked a question that is not directly related to the issue that I have been discussing and he will forgive me if I do not embark with him on a debate on exactly what a fair rent should be. It is a subject that we have debated at very great length. All I have been saying is that those who thought that there would be an increase in council rents in October of £1 have been wrong, and in so far as they have expressed that view they have misled others.
Misunderstanding is not limited to what is to happen in October. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) led some of his hon. and right hon. Friends into talking about doubling rents, into saying that the Bill would double rents. It may happen in some instances, but it is already clear from the local authority applications for directions that we have received that they at least, after informal consultations with rent officers in their areas, expect that the difference between existing rents and the likely fair rents will be very much less than that.
It is worth remembering that once a fair rent is reached it will normally not be changed for three years or more. That is not so today. I doubt whether rents will go up as fast as they did between 1964 and 1970 when they rose overall on average by 68½ per cent., which, as this was an average, means that in many instances they must have doubled.
The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydvil and Willesden, East mentioned the percentage and the relationship to the CBI's norm. Following a recent exchange at Question Time, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to let him have estimates of the extent to which council and private tenants would be affected over the next 12 months by increases or rebates as a result of the Bill. My right hon. Friend is writing to the right hon. Gentleman about this, but meanwhile he has authorised me to tell the House that, while no precise estimate is yet possible, the best estimate that can be made for the 9 million council and private tenants in Great Britain, after allowing for rebates and decreases in rents, is that over the next 12 months the net average effect of the Bill on tenants overall might be to increase rents by about 7½ per cent.
This is not quite within the CBI's 5 per cent., but it is not very far above it. It does not compare too badly with the annual increase in council rents in England and Wales during the six years of the last Administration. These varied from 7 to 11 per cent. They showed no change in trend even during the period of direct statutory control of rent increases under the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, when the statutory limit for increases in wages and dividends was 3½ per cent., and the hope was expressed by the then Government that prices would not rise at all.
12 midnight.
I know that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued that we originally meant to double and more than double rents but that we were driven off this objective by their skill in debate. I ought perhaps to put the record straight. The Bill when first introduced provided for increases towards fair rents by prescribed amounts without allowing for modification before rents were determined. It merely provided for the refund of any rent overpaid if the rent exceeded the fair rent when the latter came to be determined.
Newcastle Corporation put to us the point that this could cause unjustifiable increases above the fair rents and, therefore, unnecessary refunds and unnecessary problems, because many of the rents


proposed were believed to be at or near the fair rent, as seems likely to be the case. The Newcastle approach prompted us to move in Committee on 22nd February an Amendment containing the nucleus of Clause 62(4). Our original Amendment empowered the Secretary of State to give a direction allowing a lower average increase than the one prescribed in the Bill if it appeared to him that the rents of 10 per cent. of the authority's dwellings were likely substantially to exceed the fair rent.
When I moved the Amendment in Committee on 24th February I went a bit further and reduced the percentage to 2 per cent. Clause 62(4) involves no retreat by the Government. Our intention throughout has been to bring council rents to the fair rent level but not above the fair rent level

Mr. Frank Allaun: How does the Minister know what the rents will be?

Mr. Amery: We do not know. The final determination on fair rents rests not with my Department but with the rent scrutiny board. We wish to ensure that there is no danger that an increase of £1 will take the local authority rent over the top of the fair rent. We do not wish that to happen, but it is in the last analysis for the rent scrutiny board to decide and nobody else. It is a matter not for the Government but for the board.
It is often argued by the Labour Party—it has recently been argued in a document put to the National Executive of the LabourParty—that more tax relief is given to owner-occupiers than subsidies to council tenants. I do not accept that tax relief is the equivalent of a subsidy, but I must ask the House to look at the figures. The figures in the recent Labour Party document—I realise that it is not yet endorsed by the Executives—suggested that relief on mortgage interest was £300 million and that housing subsidies were £160 million. These figures are wrong and do not compare like with like.
The sum of £300 million covers the whole of the United Kingdom, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The £160 million covers

England and Wales and ignores the central Government subsidy for Scotland of £41 million. It ignores the £65 million rate fund contributions to England and Wales and the £40 million rate fund contributions to Scotland. If we add central and local government contributions together, the subsidies to council tenants for the whole of Britain are just about the same as the tax relief on mortgages.
To get the balance straight—and I am sure the right hon. Member for Grimsby will want to take those who produced this paper to task—we must take into account two other considerations. The first is the rent element of supplementary benefit to council house tenants totalling £95 million but only £15 million to owner-occupiers, so that there is £80 million on the council house tenant side of the ledger. Also mortgagers attract relief for a limited time, 20 or 30 years, whereas council houses go on getting subsidy for 60 years.
The paper went on to suggest that tax relief should be abolished for mortgagers who were surtax payers or had second homes, and proposed setting up an upper limit on tax relief at the standard rate I have looked into the figures. It looks clear from what the statisticians in my Department tell me that the maximum saving that this would produce on a £300 million bill is £12 million—perhaps good Socialist doctrine, but a doctrinal mouse

Mr. Alec Jones: Enough for school milk.

Mr. Amery: I have tried to set out the points on which we are agreed—slum clearance, rising cost, rebates and allowances. I have tried to dispel the misunderstanding, where it exists, about the effect of the Bill in October over the longer run and in terms of social justice between tenant and owner occupiers. I admit that even then there are still differences between us, about timing and the discretion given to local authorities and about the exact practical con sequences of the Bill.
I submit that these are differences of degree and judgment. I doubt whether they are differences of principle. They are certainly not differences that would justify breaches of the law or opposition to the will of Parliament.

Question put, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment: —

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come to the group of Amendments Nos. 28 to 82.

Mr. Crosland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of the group of Amendments which we have been discussing, that on which we wish to divide is No. 102. I believe that we cannot vote on that at this time but have to wait until we reach its proper place in the Bill. In the next group we wish to vote on Amendment No. 56.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then I shall put the Question on Amendments Nos. 28 to 55.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 71

SUPPLEMENTAL

Lords Amendment: No. 56, in page 75, line 6, at end insert:
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (2) above, an increase of the part of any rent attributable to rates, or to the use of furniture, or to the provision of services—
(a) shall be disregarded in determining whether there has been a general rent increase or in determining the amount of that increase, and
(b) shall not count towards the increases towards fair rents which the authority is to make.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 259.

Division No. 317.]
AYES
[12.11 a.m


Adley, Robert
Cordle, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gray, Hamish


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cormack, Patrick
Green, Alan


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Costain, A. P.
Grieve, Percy


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Astor, John
Crowder, F. P.
Gummer, Selwyn


Atkins, Humphrey
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gurden, Harold


Awdry, Daniel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dean, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bell, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Benyon, W.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Haselhurst, Alan


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Havers, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Dykes, Hugh
Hawkins, Paul


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eden, Sir John
Hayhoe, Barney


Body, Richard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Boscawen, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heseltine, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Bowden, Andrew
Emery, Peter
Hiley, Joseph


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eyre, Reginald
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bray, Ronald
Farr, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Brewis, John
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Holt, Miss Mary


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fidler, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hornby, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Brvan, Sir Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Buck, Antony
Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Foster, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Burden, F. A.
Fowler, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fox, Marcus
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
James, David


Carlisle, Mark
Fry, Peter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Chapman, Sydney
Gardner, Edward
Jessel, Toby


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Churchill, W. S.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Jopling, Michael


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Goodhart, Philip
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cockeram, Eric
Gorst, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond
Kershaw, Anthony


Cooper, A. E.






King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Neave, Airey
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Soref, Harold


Kinsey, J. R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Speed, Keith


Kirk, Peter
Normanton, Tom
Spence, John


Kitson, Timothy
Nott, John
Sproat, Iain


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Onslow, Cranley
Stainton, Keith


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lembton, Antony
Osborn, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Lamont, Norman
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Lane, David
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sutcliffe, John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Parkinson, Cecil
Tapsell, Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Peel, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
Tebbit, Norman


Loveridge, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


Luce, R. N.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


McCrindle, R. A.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tilney, John


McLaren, Martin
Raison, Timothy
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Trew, Peter


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Madel, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Marten, Neil
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mather, Carol
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Maude, Angus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wall, Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walters, Dennis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Weatherill, Bernard


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rost, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Miscampbell, Norman
Royle, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Moate, Roger
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Money, Ernle
Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodnutt, Mark


Monro, Hector
Sharples, Sir Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Montgomery, Fergus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


More, Jasper
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Younger, Hn. George


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Simeons, Charles



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Morrison, Charles
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Oscar Murton and


Mudd, David
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.



NOES


Abse, Leo
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Albu, Austen
Carter-Jonas, Lewis (Eccles)
Dunnett, Jack


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Eadie, Alex


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Edelman, Maurice


Armstrong, Ernest
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Stanley
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Atkinson, Norman
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, Tom


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Barnes, Michael
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Fred


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkestone)


Bidwell, Sydney
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bishop, E. S.
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Foley, Maurice


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Foot, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dalyell, Tam
Ford, Ben


Booth, Albert
Davidson, Arthur
Forrester, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Freeson, Reginald


Bradley, Tom
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Galpern, Sir Meyer


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Deakins, Eric
Gilbert, Dr. John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Golding, John


Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Doig, Peter
Gourlay, Harry


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dorman, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Carmichael, Neil
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)







Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackie, John
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackintosh, John P.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hamling, William
Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rose, Paul B.


Hardy, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rowlands, Ted


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sandelson, Neville


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hattersley, Roy
Marquand, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marsden, F.
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Kn. Roy
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher
Sillars, James


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John
Small, William


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Milne, Edward
Stallard, Ivor


Janner, Greville
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Taverne, Dick


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Murray, Ronald King
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oakes, Gordon
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Tinn, James


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
O'Malley, Brian
Torney, Tom


Judd, Frank
Oram, Bert
Tuck, Raphael


Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Stanley
Urwin, T. W.


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Varley, Eric G.


Kinnock, Neil
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Lambie, David
Paget, R. T.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lamond, James
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Latham, Arthur
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wallace, George


Lawson, George
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Watkins, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie
Weitzman, David


Leonard, Dick
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pendry, Tom
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Pentland, Norman
Whitehead, Philip


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Whitlock, William


Lipton, Marcus
Prescott, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McBride, Neil
Richard, Ivor
Woof, Robert


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


McGuire, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Mackenzie, Gregor
Mr. James A. Dunn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

New Clause "A"

POWER TO INCREASE RATEABLE VALUE LIMITS FOR RENT ACT 1968

Lords Amendment: No. 83, after Clause 89, in page 95, line 35, at end insert new Clause "A":

"A.—(1) Subsections (6) and (7) of this section shall come into force if and only if the Secretary of State so directs by an order made not later than 1st September 1973.

(2) For the purposes of the said subsections (6)and (7) (which, for dwellings first entered in the valuation list on or after 1st April 1973, alter the rateable value limits in sections I and 71 of the Rent Act 1968) an order under subsection (1) above shall determine—
(a) as the relevant amount for a dwelling-house in Greater London, such sum exceeding £400 as is specified in the order, and
(b) as the relevant amount for a dwelling-house elsewhere, such sum exceeding £200 as is so specified.
(3) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and the Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) The date specified in an order under this section as the date when it is to come


into force shall not be earlier than 1st April 1973.
(5) If the date so specified is later than 1st April 1973, the order may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be desirable.
(6) For paragraph (a) of section 1(1) of the Rent Act 1968 (protected tenancies) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"(a) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling-house fell before 1st April 1973, the dwelling-house on the said appropriate day had a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £400 or, if it is elsewhere, £200, or
(aa) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling-house falls on or after 1st April 1973, the dwelling-house on the said appropriate day has or had a rateable value exceeding the relevant amount determined by an order under section (Power to increase rateable value limits for Rent Act 1968) of the Housing Finance Act 1972, or".
(7) In section 71(1) of the Rent Act 1968 for the words from "which has or had" to end of the subsection there shall be substituted the following words—
"unless—
(a) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling fell before 1st April 1973, the dwelling on the said appropriate day had a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £400 or, if it is elsewhere, £200, or
(b) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling falls on or after 1st April 1973, the dwelling on the said appropriate day has or had a rateable value exceeding the relevant amount determined by an order under section (Power to increase rateable value limits for Rent Act 1968) of the Housing Finance Act 1972."
(8) It is hereby declared that in section 1(1)(a) and section 71(1) of the Rent Act 1968, as they have effect apart from the preceding provisions of this section, the expression "has or had on the appropriate day" requires, in all cases, the ascertainment of what the rateable value is or was on the appropriate day, and not on any other date."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (2) after" 1968)"insert:
and which give power to the Secretary of State to alter the rateable value limits for dwellings first entered in the valuation list before 1st April 1973'.
So far today most speeches from this side of the House have been aimed at defending council tenants. Yesterday the Labour group on my council in Salford decided not to implement the Housing Bill. That decision was also arrived at by Barrow, Bolton and many other

Lancashire councils, and councils in South Wales, Scotland and other parts of the country. I am very happy about that. But we are also concerned with the private landlord's tenant whom we have not so far mentioned. Indeed, in the Amendment we are dealing with the medium-income tenant living in valuable property.
Many tenants are dissatisfied with the way in which the Rent Act, 1968, is working out. Indeed, some of us warned at the time that the formula for fixing a fair rent was nebulous, and we have been proved only too right. The figures we have extracted from the Secretary of State for the Environment show that the average increase in rent, when a tenant is taken out of control and through the so-called fair rent fixing machinery, has been to 2·6 times the previous rent. The result is that the great bulk of applications today to rent officers and rent assessment committees are coming from the property owners rather than from the tenants. What was intended as a measure to help the tenants in many cases is now working out as a measure to help the landlords.
The level of rents is going up rather than down, but at least the 1968 Act gave some protection to the private landlord's tenant. The class of tenants with whom we are dealing in the Amendment has no protection at all regarding either rents or security of tenure. These tenants live in houses with a rateable value of over £400 a year in London and over £200 a year in the provinces. Why, when the Act was first mooted in 1968, were those figures of £400 and £200 introduced? For a good reason. It was thought at that time that in that range of property the supply and demand were roughly in balance; there was not the tremendous scarcity factor existing amongst houses of a lower rateable value.
Today that situation has altered. House prices and rents have so rocketed that a scarcity exists even with this class of house. The scarcity operates there, with the result that these tenants are living in a terribly exposed situation. They are facing not only uncontrolled rent increases, but, even more serious, notices to quit. This applies throughout Hampstead, St. John's Wood, Chelsea, South Kensington, Chingford, Brondesbury, the Barbican and similar areas of London


and the provinces. These tenants are often sick with worry.
Major Sam Waldman, a forceful and well-informed tenants' association leader, has been inundated with telephone calls from tenants in this category who are in real trouble. Concerning this situation, he says:
Thousands of middle-class and lower middle-class families are living in such apartments—by no stretch of imagination luxury homes. The owners are refusing to renew short leases. Since these tenants have no protection from the Rent Acts, a pistol is being held at their heads. They are being faced with the ultimatum, 'Buy or get out.' 
These include families who have lived in such a house for 30 years and are faced overnight with this demand. Many of them are elderly people, possibly in reduced circumstances. Surely this is wrong. The insecurity and lack of rent control for those living in houses with a rateable value exceeding 400 in London, or £200 in the provinces, is now in addition seriously affecting those living in houses with a rateable value lower than those figures.
12.30 a.m.
May I explain and give an example? Take the case of families paying uncontrolled rents of £15 to £20 a week for a good-class house or flat—by no stretch of the imagination luxury houses. I am referring to flats and houses such as those at Hanover Gate and Regents Park. The property owners are refusing to renew leases at this rent and the tenants cannot afford to buy—indeed, if they are elderly they cannot get a mortgage because of their age. They are being offered 99-year leases at astronomical figures which they cannot take up, and consequently they are having to get out.
What happens to these people? They then seek poorer lettings, perhaps rented previously at £12 a week, but now raised by tie landlord to £20 a week because, although the premises are controlled, after tarting them up the property owners are getting such increases registered by the rent officers and rent assessment committees. It means that the tenants who have had to move out of good quality flats are now having to pay what they were previously paying but for much poorer quality dwellings.
The landlords of the lower quality stock are getting registrations for higher rents from rent officers and rent assessment committees. For example, in Hampstead, Metropolitan Holdings applied for £19 a week, a massive increase of £8 a week on the present rent of £11. It has gone through the rentfixing machine, and the rent has been fixed at £16, but this £4 or £5 increase for the tenants in those controlled houses makes all the difference. The result is that they in turn are having to leave their homes and to seek poorer quality dwellings.
It is no use the Minister talking about rent allowances for these people, because it may be that they have some savings—though they cannot go dipping into them—and that precludes them from getting the allowance. Moreover, they face the prospect that every three years their landlord will go after another rent increase and get it. This is happening almost without exception.
One London property company has just bought a large block for a price which will give the man behind the company only 3 per cent. return on his capital if the existing rents continue. But he is happy to do that because he knows only too well that the rents will be increased when he applies to the rent fixing machinery and he will get a far higher return than the3 per cent. which would appear to be the limit on his property. Those in controlled dwellings are in turn forced out and have to look for poorer houses. This absence of control in the higher priced flats works downwards continually and affects everybody.
Members of the Conservative Party like to pose as the friends of the middle-class. That is not so. They are the spokesmen of the ruling class, not of the middle class. If they claim to be the upholders of the middle class, they should support the Amendment. Will they do so? Right hon. and hon. Members will remember that on Report there was a revolt by a small number of Conservative Members—all credit to them—in defence of tenants in good quality houses who were affected by the phoney service charges which some property companies were inflicting. As a result of the combined votes of this side and of the minority on the Conservative side, the Government


were defeated, and I am glad that they have made an Amendment accordingly. I hope that, if hon. Members opposite feel keenly about the injustice which is being suffered by these people who are in many cases relatively well-to-do people, they will show their support by their votes.
The Rent Act does not provide sufficient protection to the private tenant. More drastic measures are needed. It is good that the new policy statement of the Labour Party proposes municipal ownership of rented property irrespective of its rateable value—it may be over £400—if the local authority thinks that that is the best way to protect the tenants from injustices. The policy statement also proposes co-operative housing and, as a further alternative, that tenants should be permitted and enabled to purchase their properties from the landlords where they are being exploited in this way. There has been support for this policy from all over the country.
As a safeguard for tenants of private landlords I have moved the Amendment.

Mr. Eyre: The effect of this Amendment—and the two other Opposition Amendments to this Lords Amendment—would be to empower the Secretary of State to increase the rateable value limits for protection of existing dwelling.
The Government do not seek to belittle the difficulties experienced by a number of tenants in certain areas who live in properties with rateable values above the limits which qualify for Rent Act protection. These difficulties undoubtedly exist. However, the issue here is not simply one of defining the field of lettings in which there is a substantial scarcity of rented accommodation. Before there can be any question of raising the rateable value limits, it is also necessary to ask whether Parliament is justified in statutorily intervening in contracts entered into by people who have been able to afford to take tenancies of dwellings which, back in 1965, had a rateable value of over £400 in London or over £200 elsewhere. That means that the dwellings had a letting value nearly 10 years ago at the 1963 revaluation of over £510 a year in London or over £265 a year elsewhere.

People who could afford these rents are, as the Francis Report said, well-to-do.
I was interested in the description of these people given by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) as middle income people. I greatly hope that the hon. Gentleman will preserve the tolerance and understanding he showed this evening when he discusses Socialist taxation measures which bear heavily upon these people.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Under-Secretary explain why a tenant who goes into Centre Point at any time has security of tenure as a business tenant under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, no matter what the rateable value of the accommodation is? Why cannot ordinary residents have the same protection?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Member for Salford, East made no reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, relates to business tenancies and must be distinguished heavily from the private sector tenancies at which the Amendments are aimed. That has been the position since 1954 under both Governments.
People who can afford these rents are well to do, and one needs to keep one's priorities right—and possibly the hon. Gentleman needs to keep his social priorities right—in the whole question of protection. Tenants who are able to occupy property at these rateable value levels will generally have adequate means to exercise choice in the type of housing they occupy, even if, in common with everyone else in a situation of shortage, they cannot always find just what they want. This should be borne in mind when considering a serious move such as the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would involve.

Mr. Freeson: Will the hon. Gentleman also take into account that it is mainly in certain parts of the stress areas of London, and no doubt of other cities as well, that these flats, as they become vacant as a result of the kind of purchase being discussed, are being sold off in to owner occupation, and thus there is a major contribution to the reduction in the total rented accommodation available which, again, puts pressure lower down the rented sector market. This


is another reason why action should be taken.

Mr. Eyre: I am not in any way belittling the problems in the central area of London, and I shall refer to them.
The stifling effects of rent legislation should also be borne in mind in this context. If landlords lose all control over their assets and the return to be expected from them, they will, whenever a dwelling is vacated, tend to find some way of disposing of it other than relet-ting. The supply shrinks, the shortage worsens and a vicious circle starts from which it may take a very long time to escape. Sitting tenants may benefit so long as their circumstances enable them to go on living in the same place but prospective tenants suffer, and in the long term nearly all tenants wanting this kind of accommodation will suffer unless alternative methods are found of providing the rented accommodation needed.
It is doubtless true that supply is already shrinking and that many landlords, when they get possession, remove the dwellings from the field of unfurnished short lettings. But many others are content to relet at present, and indeed there is evidence of some new building for renting above the rateable value limits, though one has to admit that the policy of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member certainly discouraged the prospect of private build-for letting. In the long term, therefore, to extend protection to these high value dwellings could aggravate the problems which face us in this field.
It is also necessary to bear in mind another consideration, and that is that statutory protection is extremely important for both landlord and tenant. It is vital that each party to the contract should know precisely where he stands, and should be able to regard the status of his tenancy as not likely to be disturbed until Parliament has very good reason, after full examination to decide otherwise.
The Government declined to implement the Francis Committee's recommendation to reduce the limits because they did not want to remove protection from tenants who enjoyed it. The Government must make it clear now that they would not at present propose to increase the limits either. In their White Paper "Fair Deal

for Housing" the Government made it clear that, apart from the decisions already announced, the Francis Committee's Report as a whole was still open to public debate and examination, and that new legislation would be proposed thereafter.
If there is to be any question of protecting tenants outside these limits, the Francis Committee's recommendation would provide the right basis for such further consideration. If in any area the situation were considered serious enough to justify further intervention in private contracts by widening the effective field of fair rent protection, this ought not, in the Government's view, to be left to delegated legislation of the kind specified in the Amendments. This appears to have been the view of Parliament for half a century. It may seem a cautious attitude but the Government believe that it is wise that this should be a matter of substantive legislation.
12.45 a.m.
It may be argued that it is better to have a flexible approach under which protection limits can be adjusted at short notice to current circumstances in particular areas by delegated legislation. It is, however, wrong to think that protection can be switched on and off to meet sporadic localised difficulties. Once protection has been given, it is extremely difficult to take it away without causing new hardship.
It is worth adding that the Amendments as drafted are defective. For example, it would be very much open to doubt whether, in setting new limits, separate limits could be set for dwellings built before and after 1st April, 1973. There would be no transitional powers, and so on. Even if the Government had been persuaded of the merits of the case for the Amendments, which I have stressed they are not, the Amendments could not be accepted. For all these reasons, I ask the House to reject them.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I did not want to intervene while the Minister was trying to explain the opposition to our Amendments. I did not want to be unfair to him. He appeared to be very reluctant to move away from his script. I am not so sure that he understood it.
The value of the Amendments is related to the total supply of rented accommodation. The Minister said that there was evidence of an increase in this type of accommodation for rent. I do not want to tie him down specifically to figures but can he tell the House what evidence he was referring to that during, say, the past 12 or six months there has been, or there is likely to be, either in London or in the rest of the country, an increase in the type of property to rent which would be covered by virtue of the rateable values referred to in the Amendments?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I hope that the Minister will be speaking again to answer my hon. Friend's question. I hope he will also tell the House how long he intends to continue pursuing the chimera of the idea that there is to be a resurgence of private investment in the provision of housing to let.
The Government are allowing families to be turned out of the houses they occupy to provide accommodation for the very rich. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the only new accommodation he is getting in central London is accommodation offered to let at £50 or £60 a week or more. That is the only resurgence into this market. For the most part, it is taken up not by nationals of this country but by business men or diplomats coming here—mostly business men—to whom the cost is immaterial.
Is the Minister satisfied to see families turned out of accommodation in which they have lived for many years? In many cases they are retired people living on fixed incomes. Although they had taken high-rented accommodation, they now have no security in it. How long will the Minister allow this to continue?
Will the hon. Gentleman also tell us when we may expect the Francis Committee legislation, to which he has referred as though it were coming? When is it coming? The House has been waiting two years for it. We would now like to have some information about it.

Mr. James Hill: I know from personal experience that this is a serious problem for anyone trying to find rented accommodation in London. There are those who are exploiting the situation. Blocks

of flats are purchased at a very low percentage return for the sole purpose not of trying to secure higher rents but of obtaining vacant flats so that they may be sold off, with the business of service charges, increased ground rents and all the other evils associated with the middle-class accommodation scene in London.
I feel that my hon. Friend the Under-secretary would do well to give some promise in his statement. He will have to meet this problem before very long. There are injustices being perpetrated in the housing scene in greater London. I hope that he will in the near future, if not tonight, look at the question of the rateable level, which I regard as very low.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsbcrg: I had not intended to intervene on this Amendment until I heard the sickening and phoney argument of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who poses as the champion of the middle class. It is like Keir Hardie speaking in support of surtax payers. The middle class know very well, after analysing the hon. Gentleman's arguments over the years, what sort of a friend he is of theirs. If he had had his way, they would have been stripped of every asset they had. He knows it, and the House knows it. Let us get that bit of hypocrisy out of the way at the start. The hon. Member has put down his Amendment because his scare campaign about the doubling or trebling of council rents has failed, and he is now searching for fresh ground and new people to scare.
There is concern about this problem, and many of us have been connected with efforts to solve it for far longer than has the hon. Gentleman. His interest has never extended to the middle class. There are those of us who have better knowledge of Hampstead's problems than he has or those have who have lived in Hampstead for a short time. Let us not listen to the hon. Member for Salford, East on that sort of theme.

Mr. William Price: What has the hon. Gentleman done?

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Member for Salford, East purported to praise what some Members had done on the question of service charges. It is noteworthy that some of us voted twice against our own party on this issue. I am glad to praise


the Government's good sense and regard for the national interest, about which the hon. Gentleman, in speech after speech, has shown he never cares. He represents only a certain class. The Government have clearly shown that they recognise that there is genuine concern and anxiety on the question of service charges. I am content with what they have done.
On this issue, the record should be put straight. There is the problem of the linkage of rateable value of £400 in greater London, for example, with the figure above which people cannot enfranchise their leases. The Labour Government recognised this factor, and that is one reason why they decided to take no action in this respect.
What nauseates me is the present attitude of the Opposition. If all the facts were known to them, why did they do nothing about them? Why, in a sort of death-bed repentance, do they now, at the last moment, come crying to the House saying, "We are the champions of the middle class"? The middle class is sensible enough to know that its real interests are being protected by the Government. Taxation measures are bringing them more real disposable income, and the category of tenant to which the hon. Member for Salford, East referred over and over again, in a rather mixed rag bag of a speech, is being protected and receiving for the first time rent allowances.
This is one issue on which I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, though it rather grieves me to have to do it. He at least did not like his party's 1968 Act. But very few members of the Opposition Front Bench were in revolt on it, and very few of them bothered to do anything about it when they saw the so-called evils. Although I was not in the House, I read the debates and heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman, in which he talked about loaded rent assessment panels and rent officers always doing something for the landlord. Where was the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland)? Why did not he introduce legislation when he had the chance? Because he was not convinced, and nor am I. I believe that this must form part of a new package of legislation on housing in the next Session or the one after. It must be properly considered as part of

the Francis Report; a lot has come out of Francis which we need to examine carefully.
If it were a matter of simple alteration, the House would be entitled to think that there was something in it. Because I believe it to be even more complicated than my hon. Friend has tried to tell us, so far as London is concerned, I believe that the balance he has expressed is right, that we should ask the Government to have a careful look at the matter and tell us by the Session after next, "Here is a Bill based upon what Francis said, a Bill sweeping up many of the problems which were apparent to the Labour Party, who did nothing. We, while we have a chance, will do it." If the Government do not do anything about it, they may find some local difficulties again on this side. But as they have responded so generously on service charges, I am sure that we need not be too worried.
Certainly, the one class of person who has nothing to fear from this side, and everything to fear from the Opposition, is the middle class person.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman seems to be very upset and heated about this matter. I hope that he feels strongly enough to follow his words with his vote.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: My own views on the matter are well known tithe House, because I recently tried to introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill to abolish the upper limit. Unfortunately, by the operation of the guillotine I was prevented from doing that, so I do not know what the reaction of the House would have been, but I laid the Bill on the Table.
The upper limits should be abolished. The Lords Amendment that we shall shortly discuss, which will mean that there will be different top rateable value limits for different ages of property, will make the argument even stronger. Many blocks of flats in my constituency have flats above and below the marginal line. My hon. Friend the Minister must realise that they are not very grand flats. In a single block—I can think of two in my constituency—there can be very nearly identical flats which are just above or just below the limit. The difference may even be because before the rateable value was fixed in 1965 in one case there was


an appeal for a reduction. Therefore, one flat may be protected and an identical flat not be protected.

1 a.m.

In the present situation there is not a supply. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) was right in one respect when he said there was a scarcity in this area of housing. The situation has been reached in which people—not poor people but, equally, not those with great resources—find themselves without accommodation. I am particularly concerned about the older people who cannot get mortgages and who may have lived in this sort of accommodation for some years. Perhaps they depend on a pension, which may be very good, or on an annuity. But because they have no capital they cannot buy a flat, and that is all that can be bought in my constituency.

The time must come for the abolition of the upper limits. I cannot see why the Shell Corporation should be protected for example, and yet an elderly lady in a not-very-grand two- or three-bedroom flat in my constituency should have no protection. My view remains that the upper limit should be abolished. This is a good Bill, and I am not therefore disposed to vote with the Opposition, but I cannot support my hon. Friend.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I intend to make only a brief contribution on a subject which certainly concerns my constituency, although not as much as it affects the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). I supported my hon. Friend in his Bill and I am confident that this is a subject which requires Government attention as a matter of urgency. I listened to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) who, I think, is not quite as intimately aware of conditions in South Kensington as he would lead the House to assume.
If we introduce control into this area we shall ensure that the shortage of the sort of accommodation that people are seeking at these rents will continue, and perhaps become worse. I am not, therefore, in principle in favour of control, but I am in favour of something being done quickly. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider not tonight, but seriously and as soon as possible, whether

it is desirable to give a special incentive to developers to offer long-leased unfurnished flats of good quality in central London.
Developers who offer this type of accommodation should be allowed tax advantages possibly in the form of depreciation of the property as if it were an industrial property. That suggestion obviously does not commend itself to the Opposition but it deserves consideration because we have not heard a single constructive suggestion from them about how to overcome the shortage. They never reduced the shortage; they simply tried to grapple with it by controls. Controls have not proved successful and it is desirable that my suggestion should be given further serious consideration.

Mr. Eyre: Replying by leave of the House, an example of the accommodation about which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) asked is Devonport House in Bayswater which was built by the Church Commissioners and completed only this year.

Mr. Loughlin: If the hon. Member sent me information like that I should sack him.

Mr. Eyre: I said that it was an example. I agreed with so many of the points by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). He is a genuine champion of the interests of tenants in this category. He has worked most diligently in their interests, particularly in relation to service charges, and he has been supported in this by my hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat). It has been genuine and consistent work and support over the years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South also stressed the importance of the work of the Francis Committee and its report. I assure him that the Government are greatly concerned about the problem of residents in central London. I noted carefully and sympathetically the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea stressing the difficulty of accommodation of elderly tenants in central London, and I noted the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South.
In stressing the importance of the Francis Committee's recommendations to the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. B. Douglas-Mann), I suggest that he will appreciate that the timing of any legislation following that Committee's report is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and that I could not answer specifically

on that score. The Francis Report and the matters associated with it are of considerable importance in this context and they will be carefully considered before we get to any legislation that may result.

Question put, That the Amendment to the Lords Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 275.

Division No. 318.]
AYES
[1.10 a.m.


Abse, Leo
English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ewing, Harry
Loughlin, Charles


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W (York)


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John


Bishop, E. S.
Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr. John
Maclennan, Robert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Golding, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamling, William
Meacher, Michael


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hattersley, Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Milne, Edward


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Horam, John
Molloy, William


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moyle, Roland


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Murray, Ronald King


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Janner, Greville
Ogden, Eric


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
O'Malley, Brian


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oram, Bert


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
John, Brynmor
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson. James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Barry (Flint E.)
Palmer, Arthur


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dempsey, James
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Dormand, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kelley, Richard
Prescott, John


Driberg, Tom
Kinnock, Neil
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Leonard, Dick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Rt Hn. Harold
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)





Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stallard, A. W.
Wallace, George


Roper, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Watkins, David


Rose, Paul B.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Strang, Gavin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rowlands, Ted
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitehead, Phillip


Sandelson, Neville
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Whitlock, William


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Taverne, Dick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Shore, Rt. Hn. peter (Stepney)
Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tinn, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Sillars, James
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silverman, Julius
Tuck, Raphael
Woof, Robert


Skinner, Dennis
Urwin, T. W.



Small, William
Varley, Eric G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Spearing, Nigel
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Mr. Tom Pendry.


NOES


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dykes, Hugh
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eden, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Astor, John
Elliott, R. W. (Nc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Atkins, Humphrey
Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fell, Anthony
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Batsford, Brian
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fidler, Michael
Kinsey, J. R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kirk, Peter


Benyon, W.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kitson, Timothy


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Biggs-Davison, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Blaker, Peter
Fortescue, Tim
Lambton, Lord


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Foster, Sir John
Lamont, Norman


Body, Richard
Fowler, Norman
Lane, David


Boscawen, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fry, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bowden, Andrew
Gardner, Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bray, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Brewis, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Goodhart, Philip
Loveridge, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodhew, Victor
Luce, R. N.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gorst, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Green, Alan
MacLaren, Martin


Buck, Antony
Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bullus, Sir Eric
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Burden, F. A.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maddan, Martin


Carlisle, Mark
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Madel, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Neil


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maude, Angus


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray


Churchill, W. S.
Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Havers, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Clegg, Walter
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cockeram, Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire. W)


Cooper, A. E.
Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cordle, John
Hiley, Joseph
Moate, Roger


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Money, Ernle


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Crouch, David
Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector


Crowder, F. P.
Holt, Miss Mary
Montgomery, Fergus


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hordern, Peter
More, Jasper


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.Jamas
Hornby, Richard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Dean, Paul
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morrison, Charles


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Mudd, David


Dixon, Piers
Hunt, John
Murton, Oscar


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Drayson, G. B.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



James, David








Normanton, Tom
Rost, Peter
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Nott, John
Royle, Anthony
Tilney, John


Onslow, Cranley
Russell, Sir Ronald
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Trew, Peter


Osborn, John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Scott, Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Scott-Hopkins, James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Parkinson, Cecil
Sharples, Sir Richard
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Peel, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Percival, Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Waddington, David


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Simeons, Charles
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Pink, R. Bonner
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wall, Patrick


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Soref, Harold
Walters, Dennis


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Spence, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Raison, Timothy
Sproat, Iain
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stainton, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Redmond, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Sutcliffe, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Younger, Hn. George


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)



Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Temple, John M.
Mr. Hamish Gray.


Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Question accordingly negatived.

The Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause "B"

INFORMATION ABOUT SERVICE CHARGES

Lords Amendment: No. 84, in page 95, line 35, at end insert new Clause "B":
B.—(1) Where the service charges which are payable by the tenant of a flat in any calendar year, or which are demanded from the tenant as being so payable, exceed the amount specified in subsection (2) of this section, the tenant shall, in accordance with this section, be entitled to obtain a summary in writing of the relevant costs in the accounting year ending in or with that year, certified by a qualified accountant as being in his opinion—
(a) a fair summary of those costs, set out in a way which shows how they are or will be reflected in demands for service charges, and
(b) sufficiently supported by accounts, receipts and other documents which have been produced to the accountant,
and the certificate shall identify the accounting year to which the summary relates.
(2) The said amount is £80, but the Secretary of State may from time to time vary that amount by order.
An order under this subsection may contain such transitional or other supplemental or incidental provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, and shall be contained in a statutory instrument of which a draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(3) The rights conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercisable—
(a) if the tenant has contractual rights exercisable in return for a reasonable payment, or without payment, enabling him to obtain from time to time statements of the relevant costs, certified by a qualified accountant, which afford all the information which could be obtained under this section, or
(b) if there are accounts, certified by a qualified accountant, which afford all the information which could be obtained under this section, and the tenant is given reason able facilities for inspecting them, and taking copies of or extracts from them, or
(c) where there are not more than five flats in the building, and the relevant costs relate only to that building, if the tenant is afforded reasonable facilities for inspecting the receipts and other records supporting the service charges, and for taking copies of or extracts from them.
(4) The tenant shall exercise the rights conferred by this section by serving on the land lord a request in writing which states the calendar year to which the request relates, and which is so served not later than twelve months after the end of that year.
(5) It shall be the duty of the landlord to comply with the request not later than one month after the service of the request, or six months after the end of the accounting year with which the summary is to deal, whichever is the later.
(6) If the request relates in whole or in part to relevant costs incurred by or on behalf of a superior landlord, and the landlord on whom the request is served is not in possession of the relevant information about the costs so incurred—
(a) he shall in turn serve a request for the relevant information on the person who


is his landlord, and it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the request within a reasonable time, and
(b) it shall be the duty of the landlord (that is to say the immediate landlord) to comply with the tenant's request, or the pan of the request relating to the relevant costs incurred by or on behalf of the superior landlord, within the time allowed by subsection (5) above or within such further time, if any, as is reasonable in the circumstances.
(7) If no accounts have been made up, or if for any other reason it is impracticable to deal with an accounting year, the summary specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be a summary of the relevant costs in the calendar year, and—
(a) the accountant's certificate shall indicate that the summary deals with relevant costs in the calendar year, and
(b) subsection (5) above shall apply with the substitution for the reference to the accounting year of a reference to the calendar year.
(8) A request under this section shall be deemed to be duly served on a landlord if it is served on any agent of the landlord named as such in a rent book or other similar document, or to the person who receives the rent on behalf of the landlord; and it shall be the duty of a person on whom the request is so served to forward it as soon as may be to the landlord.
(9) The assignment of a tenancy shall not affect the validity of a request served under this section before the assignment, but a landlord shall not be obliged to provide the summary specified in subsection (1) of this section more than once for the same flat for the same period.
(10) If any person without reasonable excuse fails to perform any duty imposed upon him by this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(11) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted by any local authority.
(12) In this section—
"accounting year" means a period of twelve months for which the accounts relating to the building in question are made up,
"flat" means a separate set of premises, whether or not on the same floor, constructed or adapted for use for the purposes of a dwelling and forming part of a building from some other part of which it is divided horizontally, being a set of premises occupied wholly or mainly as a private dwelling,
"landlord", in relation to a flat occupied by a tenant under a right conferred by an enactment, includes the person who, apart from that right, would be entitled to possession of the flat,
"qualified accountant" means a member of—
(a) The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales,

(b) The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland,
(c) The Association of Certified Accountants,
(d) The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, or
(e) any other body of Accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of section 161(l)(a) of the Companies Act 1948 by the Secretary of State,
or a person who is for the time being authorised by the Secretary of State under section 161(1)(b) of that Act; but excludes, except in the case of a Scottish firm every partner of which is so qualified, any body corporate,
"relevant costs" means any costs (including charges for overheads) incurred or defrayed in the period in question by or on behalf of the landlord, or any superior landlord, which affect, or may affect, the amount of the service charges for the flat for that period or for any other period, earlier or later,
"service charge" means any charge for services, repairs, maintenance or insurance, being a charge which is payable as part of, or in addition to, the rent, and which varies or may vary according to any costs (including charges for overheads) incurred from time to time by or on behalf of the landlord or any superior landlord,
"tenant" includes a tenant under a right conferred by an enactment, and, where the whole or any part of the flat is sub-let, includes both the tenant and the subtenant.
(13) This section shall come into force, for tenancies granted before the passing of this Act or later, on 1st November 1972, but subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to an accounting year ending before 1st August 1972."

Read a Second time.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (2), leave out '£80'and insert '£13'.
The House will recall that there was a Conservative backbench rebellion on service charges, as a result of which a Clause was inserted in another place which gave a degree of protection to all kinds of tenants of residential accommodation against their being overcharged with phoney service charges imposed by landlords. The curious thing is that that protection extends only to tenants where the amount of the service charge is in excess of £80 per annum. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend that protection and to lower the limit of service


charge above which the protection will apply to £13 a year.
The principles in the new Clause are welcome, although I have little doubt that had it not been that the Government were defeated on that occasion, we would not have had this new Clause today. Equally, if some backbenchers had had more guts over rent allowances for furnished premises and the Government had been defeated on that issue in Committee, we would have had rent allowances for them in the Bill as it is today.
Why have the Government chosen £80 a year for the service charge limit? Why not a much lower minimum? One could have the ridiculous situation in which a landlord is imposing a service charge of £70, of which £9 is phoney, and the tenant has no protection; but if the landlord is charging £81 of which only £1 is phoney, that tenant gets protection.
When one looks at the debate on this subject in Committee one sees the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) who spoke about lifts which did not work, hot water and a central heating charge, porter age, and stair carpets. There is no reason why people may not be faced with service charges for that kind of amenity and service where the total service charge comes to less than £80 a year.
That is the case for this Amendment. There may be an argument for a minimum, and that is why we have suggested 25p a week, although the Secretary of State could still lower that minimum by a Statutory Instrument. To leave exempt from challenge service charges under £1.50p a week leaves considerable latitude to landlords on calculation of service charges, and especially to those who are not scrupulous about service charges.
Anyone who doubts that there is abuse should go to an auction. I went to an auction recently—and it would do the Minister some good to go there. It was being said there that property is worth £100 a year nuisance value per tenant. What is being sold is not simply property but peace of mind and security for many people. One has only to see that kind of operation to see the abuses which are taking place and to see why there is a minimum figure.
Have the Government considered provision for some leases which, wisely, pro-

vide for a reserve fund? If I am drafting a long lease which contains provisions for repainting, I think it wise, in the tenant's interest, to try to spread the cost of painting, for providing for heating, over five or 10 years so that the tenant may be paying something by way of a reserve charge which cannot be accounted for except by putting it into are serve pool. I hope that the Minister will say that the new Clause does not prevent that kind of arrangement, which is sensible and prudent.
This only tinkers with the problem of managing flats. When are the Government to deal with the long-outstanding recommendations of the Wilberforce Committee on positive covenants and to provide for condominium arrangements such as obtain in France where an owner is the holder of an individual flat but is also collective owner of a freehold interest? This operates throughout Europe and in some Commonwealth countries, and it should operate here so that tenants can be free of a landlord and run the block of flats themselves.
We should extend enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to blocks of flats so that there can be collective enfranchisement. We should go further, so that on long leases the tenants can have a collective right to buy a freehold or to form a collective, to run it—that would abolish service charges—or have the right to nominate the local authority to municipalise the block of flats. If we gave tenants the chance to invite the local authority to municipalise, a good many tenants would exercise that option, even in middle-class Hampstead. We should try to achieve a state of affairs which would end the division of ownership between individual flats and the freehold of the whole block.
The rights granted under the new Clause should not be simply a luxury given to tenants of luxury flats but rights which are of general application wherever abuse occurs.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: As we have come to expect from him, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) made a number of interesting suggestions, some of which will require further consideration and are perhaps controversial. I think that where the question of service charges is concerned he is aiming at the


wrong target. To bring the requirement that an audit should take place of service charges down to as little as £13 seems quite a supererogation. He should perhaps press for something more definite to be said on the right of the tenants to challenge the figures. That, I hope, will be dealt with in the next session of Parliament.
What the hon. Gentleman should have added to what the Government have done on service charges—which we axe glad to see—is that where a service charge is instituted where there was none before, or where there is a sharp increase, perhaps of 50 per cent. from one year to the next or of 100 per cent. over a period of five years, that should be taken to be a matter within the competence of the planning authority in that change of use would be deemed to have taken place so that examination of the reasons for a very sudden change in service charges would be permissible.
I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in his suggestion that the figure should be reduced from £80 to as little as £13. If there is an element of hanky-panky and service charges are being pushed up unreasonably, the figure will rise to £80 a year and will be caught by the Clause.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) suggest that £65 a year is of no consequence. That may be the case in South Kensington but it is not the case in the greater part of the country. Even in South Kensington I am sure that it is not the case.
Many tenants have taken flats with service charges estimated at the time of taking the lease at about £15 but find them rapidly escalating towards £80. Until it gets to the£80 level, one has no right to inquire into the frequently vastly inflated figures. I trust that the House will not be misled by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it is not necessary to investigate service charges where the amounts involved are less than £80 a year, because £65 a year makes a lot of difference to many people.
1.30 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The arguments of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr.

John Fraser) rather puzzled me. If one applied to his £13 the same logic as he applied to the figure of £80, a mere £1 phoney figure would take his £13 out of audit and scrutiny. If he were practical and meant what he said he would have a nil figure—no figure at all.

Mr. Freeson: Mr. Freeson indicated dissent.

Mr. Finsberg: It is no good the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) shaking his head. The logic of the argument is as I have adduced. Either there will be a nil figure or one accepts the figure which the Government have put forward, which is £80.
One finds, in Amendment No. 84, that the said amount is £80, and that the Secretary of State may from time to time vary it by order. That means that if the Secretary of State had any evidence—as opposed to conjecture and speculation—that the figure of £80 was not a reasonable one, he has power to alter it without introducing what I call this claptrap Amendment, which will put everyone to considerable trouble. On second thoughts "claptrap" is the wrong word; I should have referred to it as a "tinkering" Amendment.
On Report some of my hon. Friends and I had a new Clause selected and voted on twice. Until then the Opposition had shown virtually no interest in the subject, because it affected the private tenant. Now they want to change the figure from £80 to £13.
I want to quote the words of their spokesman in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member mentioned a number of examples in his speech on Report—in particular, two cases that went to the rent officer. Can he assure the House that the examples that he gave in the 100 letters to which he referred concerned service charges of over £80 a year? Can he give that categorical assurance?

Mr. Finsberg: I am afraid that I cannot, because the information was not given by my constituents, but my hon. Friend, by the pressure that he has put, through the Department, has got a far wider service charge Clause than I dared hope for, because the Clause now covers tenants whether or not they have bought


their leases. I do not notice any reference to middle-class protection on this issue.
Let us look at the matter in perspective. I was about to quote the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. On 27th June, 1972, he said:
…we are glad that the Government have worked fast and put something into the Bill which undoubtedly meets part of the problem—and I should have thought a major part of the problem.…We recognise that a great deal has had to be done and that the Amendment has been put together rather more quickly than usual in this complicated field of rents and leases. Nevertheless, on a quick reading, it appears to me that the Government have got it about right. There are one or two small points where perhaps the periods might be varied a little
—"periods", not "figure"—"
but they are niggling points and certainly not worth raising at this stage."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th June, 1972; Vol. 332, c. 845.]
Nor was the question raised subsequently on Report in another place.
I therefore suggest that what has happened is simply that when this long list of Amendments came from another place the Opposition sat down and scratched around trying to find something on which they could spin out the length of time for which they had asked on this last day, because they know that the public are not interested any more; the Opposition's scare campaign has been shot to pieces. They are now trying to find fresh issues.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not accept the figure £13 because he has power in the subsection to alter it by order if the evidence appears. But I am not satisfied about the right of challenge. I note that there has been no Opposition Amendment on this point. So much for middle-class interest. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that in the next Session and not the one after he will find it possible to provide a right of challenge, in spite of the difficulties which he will undoubtedly be told by his advisers exist. If he will say to his advisers, "I want this", they will give him a suitable Clause. I will accept nothing less. I have said this to my hon. Friend, and I know that he appreciates that this is an important issue.
Lastly, my hon. Friends and I can claim to have been consistent in saying that on this issue of service charges too

long an interval elapsed when the Labour Party was in power to do something and did not, and it appeared as though we would miss the opportunity which the Housing Finance Billoffered. My right hon. Friend seized the opportunity, when the Bill went to another place, of introducing half the protection that some of us wanted on service charges—namely, the right of audit and of inspection. I am not particularly concerned about the figure of £80, because anyone with experience in this sphere knows that it is not a wildly high figure. The right of challenge will provide an opportunity of looking at and scrutinising another kind of phoney figure which is being put about.
I refer to the kind of situation where two or three major property companies get together and form a consortium company, in which they each own shares, to carry out, say, the gardening for certain blocks of flats and do not get a competitive quote because they are all perfectly happy. The tenants cannot do much about that kind of situation. However, individual tenants, particularly tenants' associations which are not politically motivated but are genuinely interested in their tenants' problems, know that they can get an alternative quote to keep the gardens at their blocks of flats trim, neat, and the lawns mown at a cheaper price than that being quoted by the consortium. Unfortunately, until there is a right of challenge, they cannot do anything about it.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I accept that this tactic that the hon. Gentleman is describing of getting one company to offer services to another at an excessive price is common and that it is undesirable that somebody should be charged £79 a year for a service which should be provided at £15 a year.
The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that we on this side of the House are not entitled to represent the middle class. We do not accept that. I do not know whether he is seeking to suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled on occasions to represent the working class or those on low incomes. If so, does he agree that it is unreasonable that they should be charged £79 a year for a service for which they should be charged only £15?

Mr. Finsberg: I should not be so arrogant as to claim to represent any


class. I hope and think that I represent people of all classes. I leave it to the Opposition to be so arrogant about which class they represent.
On the sensible point made by the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he and I are thinking on the same lines. The matter about which I have spoken is merely one element. If one analyses the breakdown of many service charges, the cumulative figure will in almost every case far exceed £13 a year. What I tried to point out, and thought that some hon. Gentlemen opposite had accepted, was that there would have been logic in putting down a figure of, say, £1, but that there is no logic in putting down a figure of £13. I am critical because they have just plucked a figure from the air.
If the Opposition wanted to be practical, they could have done one of two things. They could have tried to cash in on the challenge part, but they did not, or they could have put down a nil figure, which they did not. Instead, they plucked from the air a figure which had not occurred to their spokesmen in another place who had not queried the figure, but merely thought there might be something in the detail to be looked at later. When that later stage came, they did not then find any cause to change the figure.
I do not believe there is any merit in what the Opposition have been saying. I repeat, stage 1 has been successfully accomplished. I trust that stage 2 will be accomplished with the help of my right hon. Friend's advisers, but in spite of them, if necessary. I reject the pork barrel approach of the Opposition.

Mr. Eyre: As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has explained, the effect of the Amendment would be to ensure that any tenant who was asked to pay more than £13 by way of a variable service charge in any calendar year was entitled to receive on demand audited accounts covering the relevant costs. The measures contained in new Clauses "B" and "C" are designed to remedy an abuse involving the payment by tenants of unexpectedly large sums of money by way of service charges under the terms of the lease enabling the landlord to vary such charges. These charges cover expendi-

ture incurred on the tenant's behalf, but in many cases the tenant has been unable to obtain an adequate record of the way in which the money has been spent.
The Department has now seen a fair number of examples of this abuse, including those quoted in letters in which many hon. Members have provided, and, for which we are most grateful. In all the examples drawn to our attention—this is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann)—the annual charges were far more than £80. Indeed, they were usually more than double that amount, and the figure of £80 has not been changed since the Clause was introduced in Committee in another place and where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) said, the new proposal was commented upon approvingly.
The hon. Member for Norwood mentioned a reserve fund. If there is a charge which goes to a reserve fund for service, maintenance, and so on—the building of the fund for a period of time—and if it is variable, then it is covered by the Clauses and will be included in this requirement about audited accounts.
I want to stress what we have always made clear, that this provision about £80 a year is only a first step. We have set up a leasehold service charge study not only to consider methods of giving tenants a right of arbitration but also to look at any shortcomings which the new Clauses may contain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead wisely said, the Clauses contain power to vary the £80 limit by order, and if the study or experience of the new provisions were to reveal the need to reduce this limit, it could be done by order.
I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Norwood about co-operatives, or condominium which I think can be a middle-class description of a similar operation. The leasehold service charge study will examine the methods adopted to run the common parts of blocks in Europe and in the United States of America and also the arrangements being developed in this country—and there are many interesting developments. All these proposals for the bringing together of people to look after shared common interests—which is of considerable significance


in the arrangements for the occupation of these shared blocks—will be carefully considered. We want to develop a good and adequate system for encompassing these difficulties.

1.45 a.m.

My hon. Friends the Members for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and for Hampstead referred to the right to challenge service charges. I accept the importance of the points they made and will have strongly reassuring words to use on a subsequent Amendment, if it is reached. At this stage I remind my hon. Friends that a full study has been set up on the question of arbitration and the aim of being able to challenge service charges. The service has the purpose of bringing forward legislative proposals to meet this point.

Meanwhile, there is not sufficient evidence for choosing a figure anything like

as low as £13 a year. The new Clauses will ensure that landlords provide professionally audited statements on request, on pain of a maximum fine of £200. We have made this a severe penalty. The provisions are designed to deal with the mischief under which considerable sums are sometimes demanded and of which tenants are not given a record. To make this apply to service charges of just over 25 pa week when the tenant must know that he would have to pay some service charge would put an unreasonable burden on the great number of respectable and responsible landlords and would run the danger of trivialising the provision and the offence. It is for this reason that I urge the House to reject the Amendment to the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment to the Lords Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 274.

Division No. 319.]
AYES
[1.48 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Leslie


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D,
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Ashton, Joe
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hunter, Adam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Driberg, Tom
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Barnes, Michael
Duffy, A. E. P.
Janner, Greville


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunn, James A.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Dunnett, Jack
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edelman, Maurice
John, Brynmor


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ellis, Tom
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Evans, Fred
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Ewing, Henry
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Bradley, Tom
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foley, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Foot, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Buchan, Norman
Ford, Ben
Kinnock, Neil


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Forrester, John
Lambie, David


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lamond, James


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, VV.)
Freeson, Reginald
Latham, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E.
Lawson, George


Carmichael, Neil
Gilbert, Dr. John
Leadbitter, Ted


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Leonard, Dick


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Golding, John
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Marcus


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lomas, Kenneth


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Loughlin, Charles


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamling, William
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McBride, Neil


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hardy, Peter
McCartney, Hugh


Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Walter(Wakefield)
McElhone, Frank


Davidson, Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McGuire, Michael


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hattersley, Roy
Mackenzie, Gregor


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mackie, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackintosh, John P.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Horam, John
Maclennan, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey






McNamara, J. Kevin
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Spriggs, Leslie


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Pavitt, Laurie
Stallard, A. W.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Marks, Kenneth
Pendry, Tom
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Marquand, David
Pentland, Norman
Strang, Gavin


Marsden, F.
Perry, Ernest G.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Prescott, John
Taverne, Dick


Mayhew, Christopher
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)


Meacher, Michael
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Probert, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mendelson, John
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tinn, James


Mikardo, Ian
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Tomney, Frank


Millan, Bruce
Richard, Ivor
Tuck, Raphael


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Urwin, T. W.


Milne, Edward
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Varley, Eric G.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin


Molloy, William
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roper, John
Wallace, George


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rose, Paul B.
Watkins, David


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Moyle, Roland
Rowlands, Ted
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sandelson, Neville
Whitehead, Phillip


Murray, Ronald King
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Whitlock, William


Oakes, Gordon
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ogden, Eric
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


O' Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Oram, Bert
Sillars, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Oswald, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis
Woof, Robert


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sufton)
Small, William



Paget, R. T.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Palmer, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Donald Coleman.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Cooke, Robert
Green, Alan


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooper, A. E.
Grieve, Percy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cordle, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gummer, Selwyn


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cormack, Patrick
Gurden, Harold


Astor, John
Crouch, David
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Atkins, Humphrey
Crowder, F. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Awdry, Daniel
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Dean, Paul
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Batsford, Brian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Haselhurst, Alan


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dixon, Piers
Hastings, Stephen


Benyon, W.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Havers, Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hayhoe, Barney


Blaker, Peter
Dykes, Hugh
Heseltine, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Body, Richard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hiley, Joseph


Boscawen, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bowden, Andrew
Emery, Peter
Holland, Philip


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eyre, Reginald
Holt, Miss Mary


Bray, Ronald
Farr, John
Hordern, Peter


Brewis, John
Fell, Anthony
Hornby, Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fidler, Michael
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hunt, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Iremonger, T. L.


Buck, Antony
Fortescue, Tim
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Foster, Sir John
James, David


Burden, F. A.
Fowler, Norman
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fox, Marcus
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. C. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fry, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Mark
Gardner, Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Chapman, Sydney
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jopling, Michael


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhew, Victor
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gorst, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gower, Raymond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cockeram, Eric









Kinsey, J. R.
Mudd, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Kirk, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Kitson, Timothy
Neave, Airey
Soref, Harold


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Speed, Keith


Knox, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Spence, John


Lambton, Lord
Normanton, Tom
Sproat, Iain


Lamont, Norman
Nott, John
Stainton, Keith


Lane, David
Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborn, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sutcliffe, John


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Parkinson, Cecil
Tapsell, Peter


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Peel, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Loveridge, John
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Luce, R. N.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Tebbit, Norman


MacArthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


McCrindle, R. A.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)


McLaren, Martin
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tilney, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Trew, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tugendhat, Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Redmond, Robert
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Maddan, Martin
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Madel, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Mather, Carol
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wall, Patrick


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walters, Dennis


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Weatherill, Bernard


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rost, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Royle, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilkinson, John


Moate, Roger
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Money, Ernle
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Monro, Hector
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Sir Richard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Se'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Younger, Hn. George


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Simeons, Charles
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Morrison, Charles
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "D"

HOUSING COMMISSIONER: SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 96, after Clause 93, in page 102, line 10, at end insert new Clause D.
"(1) A Housing Commissioner shall have power to do all such things as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the performance of the functions he is appointed to discharge, and he may in particular—
(a) do anything which the authority would have power to do in the performance of those functions, and complete anything begun by the authority in the performance of those functions,
(b) appoint and employ his own staff, obtain any legal or other professional services, and use any legal or other professional advice obtained by the authority,

(c) institute or defend legal proceedings, and continue any proceedings to which the authority are a party,?
(d) execute any deed or other document, which shall be valid whether or not ex pressed to be executed in the name of the authority, and for that purose use the seal of the authority,
(e) grant any tenancy, and execute and serve a notice to quit, or any other notice, and
(f) conduct business from, and require correspondence to be addressed to, any ordinary address of place of business of the authority, or any other address or place.
(2) Notwithstanding section 286(1) of the Local Government Act 1933 or any other provision concerning any notice or other document served or to be served on a local authority, a Housing Commissioner may authorise a document which relates to the functions which he is appointed to discharge to be served on the Housing Commissioner, instead of on the authority, or to be served at an address appointed by the Housing Commissioner for the purpose, instead of at any other proper address; and service in accordance with this subsection shall be good service for all purposes.


This subsection shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to any document sent or delivered to a local authority or to a Housing Commissioner as it applies to a document served on a local authority or on a Housing Commissioner.
(3) It shall be the duty of the authority to take all reasonable steps to facilitate the performance by a Housing Commissioner of the functions he is appointed to discharge, and the authority shall in particular—
(a)afford all reasonable facilities to the Housing Commissioner for obtaining information and inspecting and taking copies of documents and, where documents relate exclusively to the functions he is appointed to discharge, for taking possession or control of those documents,
(b) allow the Housing Commissioner to use, or share the use of, any premises or property previously used, or used in part, by the authority in discharge of those functions,
(c) allow the Housing Commissioner to use, or share the use of, the services of officers in any department of the local authority to which those functions are or were assigned, or of any officers whose services were used, or used in part, by the authority in discharge of those functions.
(4) It shall be the duty of any officer of the authority to obey any order given to him by a Housing Commissioner for the purposes of the functions which the Commissioner is appointed to discharge, and to give to the Housing Commissioner all assistance which he is reasonably able to give for those purposes.
(5) The terms of service and remuneration of a Housing Commissioner, and of any staff appointed by him, shall be such as the Secretary of State may determine with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service.
(6) The acts of a Housing Commissioner shall be valid notwithstanding any defect that may afterwards be discovered in his appointment.

(7) The authority shall on demand pay to the Secretary of State—
(a) any expenses certified by the Secretary of State to have been incurred by a Housing Commissioner in pursuance of the provisions of this Part of this Act; and
(b) any sum certified by the Secretary of State as required to meet the remuneration of a Housing Commissioner.
(8) An authority shall have the like power of raising money required for paying expenses or other sums certified by the Secretary of State as aforesaid as they have of raising money for paying expenses incurred directly by them, and the payment of any sums so certified shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State, be a purpose for which the authority may borrow money in accordance with the statutory provisions relating to borrowing by that authority.
(9) The provisions which may be included in an order by virtue of subsection (13)(b) of the last preceding section shall include any matters connected with the coming into force of such an order, or its termination, and the provisions of this section are without prejudice to the generality of the said subsection (13) (b).
(10) Where, in pursuance of an order under the said subsection (9), a Housing Commissioner ceases to perform the functions which he was appointed to discharge, he shall prepare a report on the discharge of those functions, and submit it to the authority; and he shall include in the report any information which, in his opinion, may assist the authority in resuming the functions which he has been discharging."

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Eyre.]

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 246.

Division No. 320.]
AYES
[2.0 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Dixon, Piers


Astor, John
Buck, Antony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Atkins, Humphrey
Bullus, Sir Eric
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dykes, Hugh


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Batsford, Brian
Carlisle, Mark
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Chapman, Sydney
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Benyon, W.
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Emery, Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Churchill, W. S.
Farr, John


Blaker, Peter
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fell, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clegg, Walter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Body, Richard
Cockeram, Eric
Fidler, Michael


Boscawen, Robert
Cooke, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cordle, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Bowden, Andrew
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Braine, Bernard
Cormack, Patrick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bray, Ronald
Crouch, David
Fortescue, Tim


Brewis, John
Crowder, F. P.
Foster, Sir John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Fowler, Norman




Fox, Marcus
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Gilbert
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Loveridge, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Luce, R. N.
Rost, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Royle, Anthony


Goodhew, Victor
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gorst, John
McCrindle, R. A.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gower, Raymond
McLaren, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sharples, Sir Richard


Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson. Patrick (NewForest)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maddan, Martin
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Madel, David
Simeons, Charles


Gurden, Harold
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Marten, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mather, Carol
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus
Soref, Harold


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Spence, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stainton, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Havers, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Heseltine, Michael
Moate, Roger
Sutcliffe, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Money, Ernle
Tapsell, Peter


Hiley, Joseph
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper
Tebbit, Norman


Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Temple, John M.


Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles
Tilney, John


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Mudd, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar
Trew, Peter


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hunt, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Normanton, Tom
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nott, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


James, David
Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Osborn, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Jessel, Toby
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil
Walters, Dennis


Jopling. Michael
Peel, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Percival, Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pink, R. Bonner
Wiggin, Jerry


Kershaw, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wilkinson, John


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Winterton, Nicholas


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kinsey, J. R.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kirk, Peter
Raison, Timothy
Worsley, Marcus


Kitson, Timothy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Redmond, Robert
Younger, Hn. George


Knox, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)



Lambton, Lord
Rees, Peter (Dover)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Lamont, Norman
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Lane, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian



NOES


Abse, Leo
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carmichael, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Booth, Albert
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Armstrong, Ernest
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Tom
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Atkinson, Norman
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cohen, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Concannon, J. D.


Barnett, Joet (Heywood and Royton)
Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton]
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bishop, E. S.
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)







Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Judd, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Doig, peter
Lambie, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Richard, Ivor


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Driberg, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roper, John


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul B.


Edelman, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, Ted


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sandelson, Neville


Ellis, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Evans, Fred
McBride, Neil
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ewing, Harry
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael
Sillars, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silverman, Julius


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John
Skinner, Dennis


Foot, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spearing, Nigel


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stallard, A. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marquand, David
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Marsden, F.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Taverne, Dick


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward
Varley, Eric G.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wallace, George


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Abersvon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oakes, Gordon
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Oram, Bert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)



John, Brynmor
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, w.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. Joseph Harper.



Pavitt, Laurie

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after the hour at which the proceedings on consideration of the Lords Amendments were to be brought to a conclusion pursuant to Order this day, Mr. Deputy Speaker designated the remaining Lords Amendments which appeared to him to involve Privilege.

(Nos. 101, 111 to 122, 128 to 130, 133, 134, 138 to 149, 152, 157 and 159 to 166).

Motion made, and Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments except those so designated by Mr. Deputy Speaker.—[Mr. Eyre]—put forthwith, pursuant to Order and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in each of the Lords Amendments designated by Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Mr. Eyre]—put severally, pursuant to Order, and agreed to. [Special Entries.]

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Clause 41

POWER TO COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT WORKS

2.15 a.m.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 26, line 26, at end insert:
'(2) So far as is practicable Works Nos. 3 and 4 shall be buried in the sea-bed'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment we shall take Amendment No. 2, in page 26, line 26, at end insert:
'(2) Works Nos. 3 and 4 shall, at all points sea-ward of the level of high water, be buried in the sea-bed, unless there is in the sea-bed some insurmountable geological obstacle, but nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the erection, construction, or maintenance on or in the sea-bed of works to enable the transfer of oil from Works Nos. 1 and 2 to Works Nos. 3 and 4, or from Works Nos. 3 and 4 to Works Nos. 1 and 2'.
and Amendment No. 3, in Clause 49 page 30, line 34, leave out from beginning of line to second 'the' in line 35.

Mr. Farr: I do not intend to speak at length on the Amendments. I take the opportunity of declaring an interest in that I own a certain number of Shell ordinary shares. The two Amendments standing in my name could be described as alternatives, and yet they are not. Although I have tabled two Amendments, I intend to seek approval only for the second. That is because I have been advised that the first Amendment is not sufficient and was not regarded by the drafting office as watertight—or oiltight, whichever expression is appropriate. I thought it advisable, therefore, to table the second Amendment, which sets out in slightly more detail what I am seeking to achieve.
The House may well ask the purpose of the Amendments and why it is necessary to attempt at 2.15 a.m. to move any Amendment to the Bill. The purpose of these Amendments is to minimise the risk of any leak that might occur from a pipeline running from single buoy moorings to shore installations. If a pipeline—or pipelines; there will be several—is buried for its whole length, as is the purpose of Amendment No. 2, there will be far less risk of a fracture, as could occur, for instance, if the whole or part of it were above the seabed with the possibility of a vessel's anchor, for instance, fouling the above-the-bed pipeline.
It is with the intention of reducing the risk of pollution and the risk of contamination from spillage should the pipelines be fouled or damaged in any way that the second Amendment seeks to place them below the seabed, so that not only is there less risk of breakage or fracture but, should breakage or fracture occur, there would be far less risk of any oil spreading out and contaminating the surrounding waters, as would be the case if the pipelines were resting on the seabed.
It is important to remember in this context that there will be a considerable amount of oil going through these pipelines. Shell estimates that by 1973 the flow of crude oil to Stanlow will increase to about 20 million tons per annum, so that there is always a good chance of the pipelines in question being in regular use.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member has unwittingly probably made an error. He spoke of "by 1973"; the terminal would not be in operation by next year.

Mr. Farr: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I meant to refer to 1980, and I apologise for that slip of the tongue. The fact remains that there will be a considerable amount of oil going through the pipelines with a consequent risk of contamination and spillage should the pipelines be fractured.

Mr. John Tilney: Am I not right in saying that the company wishes to bury the pipes below the seabed except where there is boulder clay, where there is a danger of fracture when the boulder is removed?

Mr. Farr: I have no doubt that Shell would like to bury them under the seabed, and in order to ensure it I am suggesting these Amendments.
On Second Reading evidence was given to show that contamination had occurred on different single buoy moorings all over the world, and reference was made to the single buoy mooring at Durban in South Africa. Since Second Reading, fresh evidence has come to light, and it has been ascertained that the original figure by Shell of spillage from the single buoy mooring at Durban was inaccurate, and the House may be interested to listen to an extract from a letter which appeared in The Times on 19th July from Mr. Carpendale, a member of the Natal Provincial Council. He wrote in relation to the Anglesey Marine Terminal Bill, and particularly the single buoy mooring in Durban:
'Shell have, I believe, presented a picture of trouble-free operations at Durban. As an elected representative in the Natal Provincial Council for the constituency in which our beach is situated, I must repudiate Shell's contention and say that we have had a number of spillages from the oil terminal and that the position has become most unsatisfactory.
He goes on to say that there has been considerable pollution of neighbouring beaches.
I put forward the Amendments with a view to securing that as far as is humanly possible the oil will be transferred in the utmost safety from ship to shore, which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will regard as a reasonable request.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for the way in which he moved his Amendment. The promoters of the Bill, the County Council of Anglesey, have asked me to say that, although they do not regard either of the hon. Gentlemen's Amendments as necessary, since the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has an overriding authority to determine this matter, they do not wish to be regarded as too rigid and are, therefore, glad to be able to meet the hon. Gentleman on this issue and accept his first Amendment.
Several of my constituents have written to me on this point. I have also been approached by the Department of Marine

Biology at University College, Bangor. Professor Fogg, the head of the department, has spoken to me, as have several other people, including the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Geraint Morgan). I am, therefore, glad to say that Anglesey County Council is prepared to accept the first Amendment.
The second Amendment presents difficulties. It has the same objectives, but in trying to be more specific it succeeds in being less clear. First, there could be insurmountable obstacles which are not geological. Secondly, and more importantly, in the second Amendment the reference to the transfer of oil from Works Nos. 3 and 4 to Works Nos. 1 and 2 would enable oil to be pumped back to the buoy. That is exactly what the objectors have sought to avoid and what the promotors have covered in new Clause 49. The promoters, in seeking to meet a major point made by the objectors, inserted the new Clause, which was accepted by the Select Committee and is recommended to the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his second Amendment because of its ambiguity, but we are prepared to accept his first Amendment.

Mr. Kaufman: Before we proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you be kind enough to clarify the method of procedure? Are we now taking together as one debate the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and the Amendment in my name, and thereafter shall we proceed to a Third Reading debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is so.

Mr. Kaufman: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall confine myself to speaking to the third Amendment, which is in my name.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) said that in Committee the promoters made a major concession on Clause 49 by incorporating what was only an undertaking when another place considered the Bill so that it was now part of the Bill. We have, therefore, Clause 49, on page 30:
Except with the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and of the Secretary of State for Wales the Company shall not use or permit to be used the Company's works for the loading into vessels of crude oil.


I am dissatisfied with this because it seems that it gives a commitment without giving a commitment. On the one hand it says that there shall not be loadings of crude oil when these single buoy moorings are established and on the other it says that these will be possible with the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Wales. Because of the view I take, and it is a view based not on my opinion, which is of very little consequence, but upon the evidence available, I am extremely concerned about the whole possibility of loading.
I am not satisfied that a situation will arise in which the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Wales will be withheld for loading if it is permitted in the Bill. It would be much more satisfactory if the promoters of the Bill had to come to this House again and ask for another Bill to permit loading because loading is entirely different. My right hon. Friend may very well say that loading is envisaged only in an emergency. My worry is that what my right hon. Friend says in good faith and what everyone in this House would accept in good faith from my right hon. Friend is not acceptable when the Shell Company says it, because I am afraid that the respect in which I hold my right hon. Friend and the weight which I would give any assurance from him does not extend to the respect in which I hold the Shell company and the weight which I would give to any assurance from it.
The whole of the proceedings on this Bill before the Committee of this House leaves me most dissatisfied with the attitude of Shell. Why am I worried about loading as distinct from discharging? This is to be a single buoy mooring. I have grave worries about it. Even the promoters are ready to acknowledge that the dangers they deny with regard to the discharge of oil from SBMs would be very much existent in the case of the loading of oil from the SBM. If we look at the Further Special Report from the Select Committee of another place on the Bill, published on 8th December last—and the reasons for the publication of this report I shall have cause to go into on Third Reading—we find that paragraphs 6 and 7 say:
That figures relating to the 'loading'

s.b.m.s showed that over a period of ten years, with ten ' loading' s.b.m.s operational for varying periods during that time, and handling over 5,000 ships and 190 million tons of oil, there were 122 spillage incidents, of which 35 involved incidents exceeding 30 tons. Of the 35, three (admittedly exceptional) had been of over 1,000 tons.
Then we come to what the promoters say about this. They say in paragraph 7:
The Promoters maintain that the figures relating to this type of mooring do not bear comparison with the 'discharge 'figures. They called evidence to show that the two functions were distinct, that the equipment was different, and that in the case of loading the pumps were situated on land and not in the tankers, and the pressures involved in driving oil across the longer sea distances to the 'loading' s.b.m.s were greater than those involved in conveying the oil from the 'discharge' s.b.m.s to land. The Committee accept that the loading and discharge operations are different in kind, and that greater risks of spillage attach to the former. They note the technical evidence that the pipelines to be used in Anglesey are suitable only for the discharge function and not for the loading one.

2.30 a.m.

What we have in evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Lords recalled especially to consider spillages is, from the promoters, that dangers inhere to loading that do not inhere to discharge. If one looks at what Earl Lauderdale said on Third Reading in the other place on 1st February this year, one finds:
Taking the world as a whole and the full world-wide experience of this matter, one finds that such pollution as has occurred has been mainly from loading terminals where crude oil is put on to ships, and not at terminals where it is taken off."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1st February, 1972; Vol. 327, col. 709.]
I do not accept a good deal of what the noble Earl said, but he is a supporter of this Bill and he talks about dangers from loading.

If one looks at the proceedings of the Committee on this Bill, Day One, page 10, paragraph 3, one finds that the letter of consent from the Welsh Office, the decision letter which allowed the tank farm to go ahead after inquiry, said:
In the case of the shore station site the development authorised by this permission shall be used for the purposes of providing for the reception of crude oil and bunker oil from off-shore installations and for the storage of and supply of bunker oil to ships, and for purposes ancillary to those purposes but for no other purpose…

The Welsh Office agreed to the tanker farm going ahead on the basis that there


shall be no loading; yet on Day Two, page 32,we find that Mr. Carter, a representative of Shell—and, if I may say so, from reading his evidence, an exceedingly impressive witness, perhaps the most impressive witness before the Committee on which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry) had to sit—was asked about this at Question 6:
Have Shell any intention of using this for loading?".

Mr. Carter replied:
No, but I cannot exclude unforeseen circumstances.

I regard that as disquieting, because Shell had done its best not to give evidence on this, and now a Shell witness, and perhaps the most impressive to appear before the Committee, concedes that it would be ready to consider loading in unforeseen circumstances. They are not emergency circumstances. We are told in the Committee proceedings that in emergency it might be right to reverse the flow and to load instead of discharging, but those are not unforeseen circumstances but foreseen. This was allowed for in evidence before the Committee. But Mr. Carter does not exclude the possibility of loading, and we are told that for loading one requires different equipment.

In view of the admission by the representative of Shell and by supporters and promoters of this Bill, that loading entails much greater risks of spillage and therefore of pollution and discharge, I believe it is very necessary that this Bill should specifically prohibit loading. If Shell wished to load on grounds of emergency, I would say that it should weigh that emergency against breaking the law, because if there were such an emergency and the company contravened the law I am sure that no court would penalise it. I would prefer that to happen than that there should be a specific provision in the Bill to permit loading, even with a safeguard. That is why I advocate the Amendment.

Mr. William Edwards: In his concern about these hypotheses, will my hon. Friend tell me why Shell would want to reload at a point where it is obviously spending a great deal of money simply to bring in oil and discharge it out of tankers? Can he foresee that Shell would want to involve itself in the rather

futile exercise of putting the oil back into the tankers it has brought in to discharge oil?

Mr. Kaufman: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that I believe Shell has ulterior motives in this whole operation. It is an enormous international company. It is not altruistic. My hon. Friend as a Socialist seems horrified that I should query the motives of a vast international company which seeks to make profits. I believe that Shell has ulterior motives in this entire enterprise.

Mr. Edwards: If we are to give the most complicated and perverse interpretation of all the motives Shell may have, can my hon. Friend give some indication—he has a fertile imagination—of what kind of motives Shell could have? I come from Anglesey and I live near this point. I would not want to see Shell putting oil back in this totally unsuitable operation. If there are dangers, I would like to know what they are.

Mr. Kaufman: I know my hon. Friends connection with Anglesey, having read his contributions on other proceedings of the Bill, and I know that he would hate to see Shell do this.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: How far is my hon. Friend prepared to go in relation to this Amendment? Would not he agree that in the contingency of a serious fracture occurring in the pipe, necessitating the drainage of that pipe at its seaward end, he would have no objection at all to such a course taking place? It may well be that the right to do that swiftly would be the very way of avoiding the danger of pollution, and if he were satisfied that the provisions of Clause 49 allowed that to be done and no other, he would have no objection to the Clause remaining as it stands.

Mr. Kaufman: Throughout the proceedings on this Bill, and in particular during the Committee proceedings, I have noticed the way in which Shell has sought to dazzle and bewilder opponents of this scheme by flashing all kinds of technological and pseudo-technological information before us. I am not prepared to swallow, as too many people involved have swallowed, everything that Shell says. Just because Shell says this or that, I do not necessarily accept it. I am prepared for some outside technical expert


to tell me that Shell is right. If I could be satisfied on that basis I would not press my Amendment, but I am not prepared to do so on the basis that Shell says that this is so.

Mr. Edwards: If my hon. Friend is putting forward an Amendment drawing attention to the technical problems that could arise from a certain set of circumstances, surely he should tell the House what the circumstances are against which he is trying to guard. That is all that we are trying to get from him. What exactly is he trying to guard against? What exactly does he envisage Shell being involved in, and what protection does the Amendment afford us from that situation?

Mr. Kaufman: If my hon. Friend wants that information he must read what Mr. A. J. Carter said on page 32 of the evidence on Day Two; namely, that he could not exclude unforeseen circumstances. Let him discuss the matter with Mr. Carter. I am saying that if the promoters want loading facilities, let them bring a Bill before the House, in view of the dire warnings that have been given by the supporters of the Bill against loading.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), for the expression of confidence that he was good enough to make about me personally, although I must dissent from him in the charges that he has made against Shell U.K. Limited. I would point out to my hon. Friend—as he doubtless already knows—that this Bill is promoted by the Anglesey County Council, and that the proceedings in connection with it have been going on for almost 18 months.
I remind the House that the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred have been debated in another place, have been ventilated in a Select Committee in another place, and have been debated in this House on Second Reading. They have been dealt with by a Select Committee of hon. Members from this House, and have in part been explored at a public inquiry in Anglesey for five weeks. There has been ample opportunity for a full examination and re-examination of all these matters. The people who have given evidence on both sides are not fools or silly people; they are people who have investigated and considered this matter

with the greatest care. For those reasons I beg leave to differ from my hon. Friend in the indictment that he has levelled specifically at this company.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Clause in question was added to the Bill at the request of the promoters. That was to allay the concern of the petitioners as to the apparently greater risk of pollution from SBMs used for loading. I agree that there is a difference in kind between loading and discharging—a very important difference—but the conditions that would create problems at loading terminals in some of the remoter parts of the world are unlikely to be repeated in Anglesey. Looked at realistically, the likelihood of this buoy being used for loading is a remote contingency. Nevertheless, in spite of that, the promoters inserted the Clause and proper safeguards have been built in.
The Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the two Ministers concerned, without whose consent no change in the use of the terminal could be made—would both be concerned in the environmental issues in the event of such a change, and in a situation that inspired Shell U.K. Limited to make a request, under the conditions specified in terms of the consent of the Secretary of State for Wales in town and country planning matters any change of use of the SBMs would require his further consent. There is that added safeguard. For this purpose Clause 64 lays down:
Any Minister of the Crown may cause such local inquiries to be held as he may consider necessary for the purpose of any of his functions under this Act.
2.45 a.m.
I referred to the Select Committee. On hearing the evidence the Select Committee came to the conclusion that the procedure provided by Clause 49 is more than satisfactory from all points of view, including those of any potential local objectors.
This is an important point. This provision would enable local objectors and all concerned to put their views to Ministers without the need to go through all the trouble, expense and delay which would be incurred if the Amendment were adopted. If Private Bill legislation were to be required, it would involve objectors from my constituency going through this procedure all over again.


Many objectors have studied my hon. Friend's Amendment. I make no objection to his having put it down; it was helpful that he should do so in order that we might have the opportunity of ventilating this problem. However, looking at it from the point of view of my constituents living in a fairly remote part of the United Kingdom, I think they would find the procedure in the Bill more helpful. For these reasons, I invite my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope the rules of order will not preclude the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) answering a simple question which I would have asked in advance of his last speech if I had been fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I rose at the same time as the right hon. Gentleman.
In his first speech tonight the right hon. Gentleman made some point of the wording in Amendment No. 2, "insurmountable geological obstacle". He said that there might be some insurmountable obstacle that was not geological in character. I was intrigued by this. Will he tell the House what insurmountable obstacle that was not geological there might be on the seabed? I can think only of a wreck, and surely that should be shifted. It would not be a good thing to lay a pipeline over the top of a wreck.
I do not share some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr.Kaufman). The hon. Gentleman doubted the motives of and said some unkind things about Shell. My impression, from long experience of Shell's activities, is that it has a fine record in environmental matters. It sup ports a number of national and inter national organisations which are most powerful in their efforts to protect our environment.

Mr.Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Cooke: Perhaps I might conclude, and the hon. Gentleman may not wish to quarrel with me. Having defended Shell's good intentions, I was about to say that in presenting its case, without in any way concealing evidence from the Committee, or from the House for that matter, no doubt it would put forward the most optimistic view in the light of the technical evidence at its command.

That is where the hon. Gentleman may have his doubts. Some attempt was made from the other side of the House to answer what the hon. Member for Ardwick said. I was not entirely convinced by those counter arguments.
The right hon. Gentleman said something about things that had happened in the remoter parts of the world having some bearing on this. I cannot see that it matters whether they happened nearby or far away. Was there some thought in the right hon. Gentleman's mind that because certain things had gone wrong in remote parts of the world they were not very important, but they would have been important if they had happened closer at hand?
I still feel that if this practice of loading were to take place for any reason, emergency or otherwise, the evidence that we have had this evening, or the expression of opinion that we have had, depending on the way that one looks at it, leads one to think that there would be very much greater danger of pollution than from any of the other processes that are envisaged.
For those reasons, and having asked those questions, I think there is a duty on those who support the promoters of the Bill to say a little more in their defence and to put forward a better case to counter the Amendments which we are discussing.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: With the leave of the House, may I deal briefly with the questions asked by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke)?
The hon. Gentleman asked about the insurmountable obstacles which may not be geological. I am not an expert, but I am instructed that these could be hydro-logical in character, or they could be wrecks which are so deeply embedded in the seabed that they would be difficult to shift. These may not be expected in this area off the north coast of Anglesey, but they could be substantial sand movements which are not regarded as geological.
The other question was about the problems at loading terminals in remoter parts of the world. I could give a list of these. One would be the distance from the shore. Many SBMs in many parts of the world are many miles from the shore, whereas the one at Anglesey would be


two miles off shore. In some parts of the world there is sand damage to valves, there is inexperienced local labour, and in one part of the world there was interference due to a civil war—something which one does not expect in Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Farr: Is this Amendment No. 1?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I imagine that Amendment No. 2 falls.

Mr. Farr: I wish to move Amendment No. 2.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it not alternative to Amendment No. 1?

Mr. Farr: When I spoke earlier I said that I wished to move Amendment No. 2. Both Amendments are in my name, but they could be regarded as alternatives. I did not wish to move Amendment No. 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 1 having been agreed to, Amendment No. 2 falls: and it is alternative to No. 1, in any case?

Mr. Farr: Would it be possible for the Question to be put again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I put the Question on the first Amendment, and that was agreed to.

Mr. Farr: Would it be possible to put the Question again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think the Question can be put again. The House has agreed to the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: It will be within your recollection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that last night there was some confusion in rather similar circumstances when the House expressed a view on a matter by accident. Because it was generally agreed to be a mistake, the House went back and settled the matter agreeably.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Many things have happened since last night. I will not pretend to remember exaotly what happened then, but I am sure that I can go back on something that the House has

done only by unanimous leave of the House.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in speaking to these two Amendments said that they could be treated as alternatives but that he did not ask for them to be treated as alternatives. I therefore assume that Amendment No. 2 can still be put and voted upon.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unless the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked at the commencement of his speech for separate Divisions on the two Amendments, surely if the first Amendment is agreed to the second Amendment cannot be put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It cannot be effective, as it is alternative.

Mr. Farr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. To the best of my recollection, I made it clear that the two Amendments were alternatives. Anybody examining the Order Paper will see that they cannot both be approved. I said in my opening paragraphs that I had no intention of moving Amendment No. 1 and that I would seek to move Amendment No. 2, which I then proceeded to do. I trust that in these circumstances I shall have a chance of asking the House to support me and indicating whether it thinks that Amendment No. 2 should be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House unanimously says that it wishes me to go back on what has already been done by the House, it can be done. [Hon. Members: "No."] The House does not wish it. I therefore cannot do it. Amendment No. 1 is agreed to. The other falls, it being an alternative.
I call the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) to move Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Kaufman: I do not press the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended—

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I to understand that it is in order to make a Third Reading speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When we reach Third Reading, yes.

Division No. 321.]
AYES
[3.0 a.m.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Gwynord Jones and


Ellis, Tom
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Gordon Oakes.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric



John, Brynmor




NOES



TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 




Mr. John Farr and




Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): As it appears from the result of the Division that 40 Members are not present, the business stands over until the next sitting of the House.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRISin the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

BUILDING PRESERVATION NOTICE IN RESPECT OF BUILDING NOT LISTED

3.7 a.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 56, line 11, at end insert:
'(6) If it appears to the local planning authority to be urgent that a building preservation notice should come into force, they may, instead of serving the notice on the owner, lessee and occupier of the building to which it relates, affix the notice conspicuously to some object on the building; and this shall be treated for all the purposes of this section and of Schedule 10 to this Act as service of the said notice, in relation to which subsection (1)(b) of this section shall be taken to include a reference to this subsection'.
This Amendment, with which it may be for the convenience of the Committee to

Question put, That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended: —

The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 0.

take Amendment No. 3, is the consequence of the inclusion in the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill of a new Clause—Clause 7—which during the Report stage of that Bill was new Clause 10. That new Clause, which has now been approved in another place, added a new subsection (6) to Section 48 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1969. The Section is to be found translated in this consolidation Measure by Clause 56 of the Bill.

If I may briefly remind hon. Members what Clause 56 does, re-enacting Section 48 of the 1969 Act, it provides that if it appears to a local planning authority in the case of a building which is not listed as a listed building that it is of special architectural or historical interest and is in danger of demolition or alteration in such a way as to affect the character of the building, the authority may serve on the owner, lessee and occupier of the building a notice known as a building preservation notice.

Amendment No. 1 merely provides that in a situation of urgency, instead of serving a notice on the owner, lessee and occupier of the building, it will be sufficient to affix a notice conspicuously to one part of the building. That is the essential feature of the Amendment. It is consequential upon the inclusion of the new Clause in the Bill which only recently passed through this House. Amendment No. 3 is consequential upon that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 57 to 281 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 20 agreed to.

Schedule 21

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 320, line 40, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.
This is a small drafting Amendment, the effect of which is apparent from a reading of page 320 of the Bill. It merely substitutes the word "Act" for the word "section", the purpose being to ensure that the reference to "the Act of 1972" extends to Section 9 and is not confined, as at present drafted, to Section 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 22 agreed to.

Schedule 23

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 350, line 34, leave out 'Section 11(1)(b)' and insert 'Sections 7(2) and 12(1)(b)'.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 24 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.13 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a pure consolidation Measure, consolidating all the provisions now on the Statute Book in relation to contracts of employment. It has been through all its stages in another place, without discussion. It was considered by the joint consolidation Committee, which approved it, without Amendment, on 21st June. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The Bill consolidates the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963, part of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, and part of the Industrial Relations Act, 1971. In Schedule 3, we find that part of the Industrial Relations Act is repealed. However, before the House becomes too joyous at that news, one has to take account of the fact that it is brought into the compass of this Bill.
All one can say about that is that we approve the bringing into this Bill of some of the more innocuous provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, because it will make it that much easier for us to repeal that Act in its less innocuous provisions when the time shortly comes.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gray.]

Committee this day.

LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.15 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a Measure of pure consolidation. It basically takes its root from the Land Charges Act, 1925, which was itself a consolidation Measure.
The 1925 Act dealt with two topics—registration in the land charges register of various charges on unregistered land and


registration in local registers of local land charges on land whether registered or unregistered. The two topics have grown apart over the years. The Bill consolidates all the legislation relating to the first of those topics, and that relating to the second remains in part in the 1925 Act. That part, as amended, is set out in Schedule 4 and remains in force in that form. But it is drawn together in its consolidated form in the Schedule. When the matter was considered by the joint consolidation Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, in language of refreshing informality, said that it was, "A jolly good idea". The Law Commission is now considering the law in relation to local land charges. If it recommended any legislation in respect of that—and one cannot make any forecast on it—then it could be most easily accommodated if the existing law were in the form set out in Schedule 4.
The Bill passed through all its stages in another place without any amendment and was considered by the joint consolidation Committee without amendment on 21st June this year
3.18 a.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: On reflection, one prunes away some of the more barbed remarks one might make. I content myself with saying that it is very late, and we want to expedite the business of the House as much as possible, but the Bill should not be allowed its Second Reading without some comment from this side.
I have consulted Erskine May, and I shall try to keep within the bounds of order, which are extremely narrow for a Second Reading debate on a consolidation Bill. I remind the House of the words of Mr. Speaker Morrison on 5th November, 1954, when he told hon. Members, who were anxious to stray into considering the merits of the legislation under discussion,
…the only question that can be discussed, is whether the law should be consolidated, or should be left expressed in a number of different statutes as it was before the consolidation took place."—[Official Report, 5th November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 732.]
I submit that despite the rosy gloss, to which we have become accustomed from the Solicitor-General, which the hon. and learned Gentleman put on the

Bill in his closing words, we should leave the legislation in its present form, because one of the land charges dealt with in the Bill is the rent charge on freehold land, which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) will recognise as chief rents. It is better that the legislation be left as it is and not consolidated, because the whole question is under consideration. I can rest my case by quoting the words of the Minister of Local Government and Development on the Report Stage of the Local Government Bill. Discussing a specific Amendment on rent charges and local authorities which I moved, he said that he did not want to embark upon a reform of the Law of Property Act, 1925 in the Local Government Bill and mentioned a number of problems peculiar to local authorities in connection with rent charges on freehold land. He said:
I think that it would be wrong to deal with this fringe problem before the central policy, which I am assured we shall be getting from the Law Commission, has been settled and property legislation has been brought forward dealing not only with the chief rent but with all the other aspects of enforcement of covenants, and so on, in relation to freehold land."—[OFficial Report, 13th April, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 1460–61.]
We would be well advised on this occasion to disregard the Solicitor-General and to take the advice of the Minister for Local Government and Development. When we consolidate like this, perhaps over 11 or 12 years, and we have one consolidation succeeding another, the whole matter goes through on the nod and we are virtually reduced to a rubber stamp. We are even discussing this important business after opposed Private Business, which is a question which should be taken up on another occasion.
If we consolidate this legislation tonight, there will be a strong temptation on the part of the Government, pressed as they are with their timetable, to say that although they accept that the whole question of land charges needs another examination, there is no hurry as they will eventually get the Law Commission recommendations. If we give the Bill a Second Reading I believe that we shall be encouraging the school of thought which says, "Let sleeping dogs lie". I hope that the House will resist passing through at 3.22 a.m. this important measure which is awaited by many people


who are deeply concerned about land charges.
3.24 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I invite the House not to be beguiled by the gentle blandishments of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks). He has expressed his views about a particular aspect of the law that he would wish to reform, but I cannot understand how it becomes more difficult to reform the law—if reform is justified; and I cannot say anything about that—if the law is set out clearly in one place instead of in a rambling collection of statutes spreading over 30 or 40 years. Probably the opposite is the case. It is not a case of embalming a dog which the hon. Member would like to stir so that it becomes more sanctified by its embodiment in this form. The dog, if anything, is laid out more plainly for him to scrutinise and dissect. When there is an opportunity of doing so, there can never be a case against making the law clear and drawing it together in one place. He could still assail it with as much vigour or with the same gentle style he adopted this morning.
3.25 a.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I rise only to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) on succeeding in keeping in order for four minutes at this hour of the night, which is a remarkable achievement on a consolidation Bill. I also seek to follow his remarks by saying that I, too, share his views on the iniquity of bringing before the House the Second Reading of two Bills at this hour after opposed Private Business. We are, after all, used to dealing with "unimportant" measures such as the Criminal Justice Bill at this hour, but to deal with two vital Bills of this kind at this time is going too far.
3.26 a.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) in what he said. The abuse of the House by the Government in forcing legislation of all kinds through at unseemly hours should be the subject of representations. By opposing the Bill, my hon. Friend is seeking to deliver a rebuff that may compel the Government to think about all the other Bills, of

which they have a large chain, which they might try to force through the House.
Secondly, I support him strongly in the matter of what he said. He has been kind enough to point out that the subject matter of the Bill is of deep concern to my constituents in Ardwick, who are afflicted by this section of the law which would be codified by the Bill and which my hon. Friend has long sought to change. I disagree with the Solicitor-General when he says that things will be as they are if the Bill is passed. That is not so. By agreeing to codify the provisions to which my hon. Friend and I and many other hon. Members take exception, the House is in a sense assenting to the continuation of a grievance that afflicts our constituents. The unorganised situation gives some hope of amelioration, but to codify the law will make many people feel that, regardless of the blandishments of the Solicitor-General, this is the way in which the Government intend the law to remain. On those grounds I support my hon. Friend.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot begin to comment on the merits of the issues with which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend are concerned and about which I confess I know very little, but I beg them to believe that it is possible for a consolidation Measure actually to clear the ground and to make change simpler. Certainly in at least one respect, the separation of the land charges from the rest of these provisions, codification in this form is forecast as making it simpler to make any changes that may be necessary if any changes are recommended. I beg hon. Members to accept that by recharting and codifying the jungle, we are not sanctifying it but merely making it easier to scrutinise the merits and demerits when the time comes.

Mr. Kaufman: There are two views. The hon. and learned Gentleman can almost beguile me into accepting his. I wish that circumstances had permitted the hon. and learned Gentleman to remain with us in the North West from which events in 1966 removed him, for then he would still have had an opportunity of being seized of this problem which afflicts us in the North West.
I realise that what he said is a view that he asks the House in all sincerity


to accept. I confess that I am still more tempted by the viewpoint of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South. The word used by the hon. and learned Gentleman, "sanctification", is an exceptionally good word to describe what my hon. Friend and I object to. That being so, I shall continue to give my hon. Friend my support, even though it

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It appearing from the result of the Division that 40 Members are not present, the business stands over until the next Sitting of the House.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

MR. JOHN HOPE BEECH

3.37 a.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The facts in this case are simple and not in dispute. My constituent, Mr. John Hope Beech, of Prestatyn called at his local tax office on 27th March, 1968, and asked it to check a computation which he had made which showed an overall loss of some £7 for capital gains purposes for 1967–68 as a result of disposal of certain Whitbreads securities.
The young lady official of the tax office who dealt with the inquiry asked him to wait while she went into a back office: she returned after a few minutes, having apparently consulted a more senior colleague, to say that Mr. Beech's computation was correct, and that he had incurred a chargeable loss of £7.
When however Mr. Beech submitted his tax return for 1967–68 the tax office

grieves me not to accept what has been said by the Solicitor-General in so beguiling and in an almost seductive way.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 7.

discovered that the computation was in fact incorrect, and that Mr. Beech, so far from having incurred a chargeable loss of £7 had incurred, by this transaction, a short-term gain of £151, on which he was liable to tax.

Mr. Beech contends that but for the wrong advice given to him at the tax office he could and would have carried out other transactions so as to eliminate his chargeable capital gains. He claims that in these circumstances the Inland Revenue should be prepared to forgo the £49 worth of tax which it is claiming in respect of this transaction.

The matter has been dragging on since September, 1968. Mr. Beech's health is delicate, and it is Mrs. Beech who has been handling the matter with an admirable blend of persistence and lucidity.

In May, 1971, at the request of Mrs. Beech I passed the case to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. To my surprise the Commissioner's finding was firm and unequivocal. He said:
Mr. Beech's complaint against the Inland Revenue is justified, and he can reasonably be presumed to have suffered injustice by understandably not taking steps to reduce his tax liability as a result of the mistake by the Department. In my view an appropriate remedy for this would be the waiver of that part oj" his 1967–68 tax for which Mr. Beech found himself liable as a direct result".

But the Inland Revenue has maintained its refusal to waive the tax thus due.


As my hon. Friend the Minister of State knows, I have raised this matter both with the Chief Secretary and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking them to give directions to the Inland Revenue to accept the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner and waive the tax. It is because they refused to intervene that I am raising the matter here tonight at this late hour.

I need not go into the rights and wrongs of the case itself. The Parliamentary Commissioner has done that very fully. Nor am I seeking to maintain that what has happened has produced hardship for the Beeches, though it has certainly occasioned them severe worry which has contributed to aggravating Mr. Beech's state of health. Mr. and Mrs. Beech are people who attach importance to principles. He is a retired civil servant of distinction, having been chief establishment officer of the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Finance, and he and Mrs. Beech are more concerned now to establish a principle than to resist the demands of the Revenue for some £49 of tax.

I am naturally anxious also to uphold the issue of principle. It does seem to me that the considered and impartial finding of the Parliamentary Commissioner as to the rights and wrongs of a case should override the protestations of a Government Department which is trying to cover up a slip. That is what the Inland Revenue is trying to do in this case, whereas the Parliamentary Commissioner has no axe to grind.

But I am also concerned, as I have pointed out in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, with the importance of maintaining public confidence in the rôle of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. There are those who argued, and still argue, that it was a mistake ever to have created the office, that it diminished confidence in Parliament. I disagree with this view. But what is incontrovertible is that, the office having been created, its existence will do more harm than good unless it can be shown to be a powerful and effective defender of the rights of the citizen in any dispute which he may have with a Government Department.

So far Government Departments have been quick to comply with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Com-

mission for Administration, even at some inconvenience to themselves. As far as I can discover, from reading the proceedings when the Act went through, there was no discussion of the possibility that a Government Department might decline to carry out the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. It was tacitly assumed throughout the discussion that the recommendations would, quasi-automatically, be carried out. In discussions with my colleagues this evening, one after another has expressed utter astonishment that a government department could simply ignore the findings of the Commissioner.

It happens that the majority of the very few cases in which Government Departments have not yet accepted the Parliamentary Commissioner's recommendation have concerned the Inland Revenue more than other departments. There is nothing odd, nothing discreditable, about this: the Inland Revenue's activities touch the average citizen more directly and more painfully than those of any other Department, and by their nature are likely to give rise to more complaints. Nor do I want to criticise the zeal with which the Inland Revenue notoriously defends the general revenue against the claims, however well justified, of individuals. If it were not for this zeal British tax rates would have to be substantially higher than they are. Because of this zeal it is perhaps asking rather a lot of the Inland Revenue to relinquish its claim in this case on the mere recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

The Inland Revenue is not concerned with the public respect for our democratic institutions, but Ministers, including Treasury Ministers are, and should be so concerned. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will have no difficulty tonight in showing that Mr. Beech has suffered no hardship. I do not dispute it. He will have no difficulty in showing that Mr. Beech, even if he had been given the right answer by the tax office when he consulted that office, might very well not, in the event, have succeeded in reducing his liability to capital gains tax. I do not dispute that. He would have no difficulty in saying that if tax offices are to be held liable for the advice they give they will not be able to be so helpful in giving


advice in future. That may well be so, and, if so, it is a pity. But what he will not be able to show is that for the Inland Revenue to continue to refuse to accept the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner is consistent with the important part which that official must now play in maintaining public confidence in parliamentary democracy.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues at the Treasury have already established an enviable reputation for being among the tiny handful of Ministers in this century who have succeeded in imposing their will on their Department. They have managed to bring about tax reforms which their predecessors would have given their left hands to bring in and which their predecessors were told by officials were impossible of achievement. It is because these Treasury Ministers have shown that they are able to override the perfectly valid objections put forward by civil servants that I am hoping that in this case they will recognise the serious danger to public confidence in our democratic institutions which will ensure if the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner are to be swept aside.

I do not expect my hon. Friend tonight to be able to give me satisfaction, but I hope that he will undertake to go away and reconsider this very carefully in the light of what I have said, that he will see this for what it is—a political and a moral issue in which the rights and wrongs of the advice given by the Inland Revenue are no longer relevant. What is relevant is whether public confidence in the ability of the Parliamentary Commissioner to defend the individual against the encroachments of bureaucracy is to be maintained.

3.47 a.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): In raising this matter on the Adjournment, my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is exercising one of the most important rights we have as Members, the right to bring before Parliament the grievances of constituents who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the executive. Clearly, Mr. Beech has a sense of grievance, and my hon. Friend has pursued the matter on his behalf with great tenacity.
As my hon. Friend explained, this is a case in which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration proposed that a tax liability should be waived. The Inland Revenue did not feel able to agree and was supported in its decision by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, as is entirely right and proper, by hon. Friend has brought out the next weapon in his armoury and laid the matter before the House.
I should first like to assure my hon. Friend that the Revenue refused to accept the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner only after the most careful consideration of his constituent's case, and, as he knows from his correspondence with the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, the refusal was upheld by them only after each of them had personally reconsidered all aspects of the case.
It is not disputed that when Mr. Beech called at the tax office on 27th March, 1968, he asked it to check his own computation, which his broker had agreed, showing a small long-term capital loss of £7 on a sale of some shares. The officer at the counter wrongly confirmed his figures, but when his return was examined after the end of the tax year it was realised that he had in fact made a short-term gain of £151.
The Revenue notified Mr. Beech of this in June, 1968, and in due course he was charged to short-term gains tax of about £60. Mr. Beech complained that if the tax office had told him this when he called just before the end of the tax year, he would have sold other securities before 6th April so as to establish an offsetting short-term loss and eliminate his liability. The Parliamentary Commissioner found that his complaint was justified and that an appropriate remedy would be the waiver of the tax of £60. I think that it is important for me also to include these facts in my reply in order to show that there is no dispute about them.
I fully appreciate the disappointment of a taxpayer in Mr. Beech's position who finds that he has to pay more tax than he had been led to believe, and the Inland Revenue has made it clear that it greatly regrets that incorrect information was given. It is of course doubly disappointing when the Parliamentary Commissioner's proposed remedy is rejected. This


remedy raises, however, the important issue whether, in such circumstances, the Revenue should be bound to assess the taxpayer in accordance with the view expressed over the counter by one of its officials instead of as required by the law that Parliament has enacted.
Mr. Beech visited the tax office after and not before he made the sale which made him liable to the short-term gains tax. He claims that he could have escaped this liability by another transaction if he had been given the correct information. This immediately takes one into the realms of speculation not so much about whether he would have made the right tax calculations in making his choice but about whether the securities which he might have decided to sell in order to establish a loss were ones that subsequently rose in price—so that he could have been better off overall by not selling them in 1967–68. It would also be necessary to consider the possible changes in the tax computations for the year in which he did subsequently sell the securities that he might have sold in 1967–68.
The Parliamentary Commission's proposal may seem at first sight to be a straightforward way of remedying Mr. Beech's grievance, but in fact the one certain thing about it is that it would not put him overall in the same tax position as if he had in that year sold some other security which in fact he retained for later disposal.
I think it is of the utmost importance to make clear what the primary duty of the Revenue to the taxpayer is. It is to assess his liability after the end of the year in accordance with the statutory rules so that the correct tax can be collected, or repaid where appropriate. While tax offices try within reason to give informal general guidance about the tax system or a particular part of it to a taxpayer who asks for it, I must emphasise that they are not responsible for advising anyone on how to minimise his tax liability. In particular, they cannot accept responsibility for assisting anyone to arrange his investment transactions during the course of a year so as to achieve the most favourable position by the end of it.
It follows that where a taxpayer asks them—as Mr. Beech did—in the course

of a tax year to check his computation for a particular transaction, he should not be expecting them to tell him how this will affect his overall liability because they will not have all the necessary details until after the end of the year. He is, in effect, asking them to confirm his view of what he will have to include on his return for the year as a whole as regards that transaction, and they are giving an informal opinion in advance of what they would do in the normal course after they had received his return.
If, however, the taxpayer is concerned with arriving at the most favourable overall position by the end of the year, taking account of all his transactions, then only he and his advisers can take responsibility for this. If the willingness of tax offices to give information or advice were to be treated as transferring part of this responsibility to them, this would raise such questions as whether it ought to be given at all—the point made by my hon. Friend—at what level it should be given, and at what cost in terms of time, staffing and the keeping of records in case of dispute. Acceptance of the Parliamentary Commissioner's remedy in this case would have unfortunate implications for the future as regards this aspect of a tax office's service to the public.
There is another fundamental objection. Parliament has specifically provided that even where an assessment has been made, both the taxpayer and the Revenue have the right to reopen it to correct an erroror a mistake, within a six-year time limit. It would be utterly illogical and wholly inconsistent with this provision if an answer given informally over the counter were to be treated as irrevocably binding, whereas a formal notice of assessment could be reopened at any time in the six-year period.
I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly that there are wider issues involved than tax assessments, and that the citizen may view the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner with cynicism if his recommendations can be rejected by Government Departments with the result that in any conflict between the individual and the State he will feel beaten from the start. I do not think there can be any doubt, however, that it was never intended, when the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration


Bill was debated, that in the last analysis the judgment of the Parliamentary Commissioner should be substituted for that of the Ministers responsible. This implies that there may be occasional—I emphasise occasional—cases where they do not feel able to accept the remedy he proposes.
In the debate which took place on 5th February, 1963, on the famous Sachsenhausen case, the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man), then Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, summing up the debate, referring to this particular Report, said:
The Report is a magnificent example of something that has shaken things up, made people think twice, reversed what many hon. Members thought was an injustice, and persuaded the Foreign Secretary to change his mind. Those are good and healthy things to do, but it is also good and healthy for the Government to say that they will not always agree to change their minds—".—[Official Report, 5th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 170.]
I am afraid that the case we are discussing tonight is one of those.
As I have said, the refusal to accept the remedy in the case of Mr. Beech was confirmed only after the most careful and exhaustive study of all the aspects by both the Board of Inland Revenue and by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I assure my hon. Friend that both the Chancellor and the present Chief Secretary considered this question completely independently and came to the same conclusion. When I came fresh to this matter as a new Minister, I looked at it entirely afresh and agreed with the conclusions reached by both my right hon. and hon. Friends.
It would certainly be wrong to get the impression that little importance is attached by any of us to the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings. His Results Reports and the reports from the Select Committee clearly show the considerable impact of his investigations on both the Government and the Revenue. The House will recall, for example, that the White Paper (Cmnd. 4729) of last July arose out of the First Report from the Select Committee for 1970–71 in which it recommended that the Revenue should consider providing a financial remedy for taxpayers who have been undercharged as a result of error by the Revenue, without sole regard to the degree of hardship caused. The subsequent White Paper announced a considerable relaxation in the rules for waiving the additional tax, but I am afraid that Mr. Beech does not fall within this relexation.
We came to the conclusion, therefore, taking all the factors into account, that it would not be right to waive the liability he had incurred, but I assure my hon. Friend that the decision not to implement the remedy suggested by the Parliamentary Commissioner was not taken lightly.

Sir A. Meyer: May I briefly say to my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this just a question? There can be no second speech.

Sir A. Meyer: I just wanted to inform my hon. Friend that I shall continue to pursue this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Four o'clock a.m